Podcasts about Merck

Investors rotated out of technology stocks into shares more broadly linked to improvements in the economy, Merck was the biggest gainer in the Dow up 3.5 percent, More on the next Pints and Portolios this Saturday February 7th from 12 noon to 2pm with EP Wealth Advisors and Partners CFP Travis McEuen and CMT Nathan Rogers as well as Rob Black in Pleasant Hill with exact location given once you register

From the JPM Healthcare Conference in San Francisco, Glenn Hunzinger brings together Sunil Patel of Merck and Sumit Khedekar of Citigroup for a conversation about where growth in the pharmaceutical and biotech industry is headed over the next five to ten years. They explore how scientific innovation, global sources of capital and talent, and a more forward looking approach to risk taking are shaping the future of healthcare, and why this moment may be pivotal for patients and the industry alike.Discussion highlights:Scientific innovation and unmet patient need remain the primary drivers of long term growth across pharma and biotechGlobal sources of innovation, including China, are reshaping licensing strategies and competitive dynamicsCompanies are increasingly willing to take calculated risk earlier in the drug development lifecycleValue creation depends on entering assets at the right inflection point rather than waiting for fully de risked launchesPayer dynamics, pricing pressure, and evolving consumer expectations are influencing how drugs are developed and commercializedSpeakers:Glenn Hunzinger, US Health Industries Leader, PwCSunil Patel, SVP, head of corporate development and business development & licensing, Merck Sumit Khedekar, Global head of Healthcare Investment Banking, CitigroupThis episode is also available as a video on our website: https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/health-industries/health-research-institute/next-in-health-podcast/where-will-growth-emerge-across-healthcare.htmlFor more information, please visit us at: https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/health-industries/health-research-institute/next-in-health-podcast.html.

The new HHS Health Guidelines prioritize “science” over “DEI,” according to a press release. They also prioritize America “culture,” which since WWII has become one of excess; and since the Cold War began, one of rugged individualism with no consideration for how diet and lifestyle could effect the larger society as a whole - culturally, economically, medically, etc. The new health guidelines also promote Big Dairy and Big Meat. Just one week after the new guidelines released, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act was signed into law, requiring schools to offer “at least two different options of fluid milk at lunch daily.” The White House is also cracking down on foreign owned meat packing cartels and domestic ones for illegal collusion. Considering how the 2017 sugar trade deal and the 2025 restrictions on sugar imports promoted domestic sugar use in sugary drinks, essentially promoting Big Junk, and considering how a May 5, 2025, White House directive and the May 12, 2025, executive order sought to facilitate “direct-to-consumer purchasing programs for pharmaceutical manufacturers that sell their products to American patients,” the HHS focus on Big Meat/Dairy is not merely a gift to Big Agriculture, but correlates with new SenseHub technology from Merck, the DOJ meatpacking investigation and meatpacking new automation. It also correlates to a potential promotion of artificially produced meats that will be needed to fulfill the need set by the HHS. Furthermore, to produce more meat companies will need more labor, which for meatpacking plants and slaughter-houses requires large numbers of traditionally illegal workers. In other words, they track record of the current administration, so far has spent more sugar, more drugs, more meat, more dairy, and protection of special interests.*The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, you can subscribe below underneath the show description.WEBSITEFREE ARCHIVE (w. ads)SUBSCRIPTION ARCHIVE-X / TWITTERFACEBOOKINSTAGRAMYOUTUBERUMBLE-BUY ME A COFFEECashApp: $rdgable PAYPAL: rdgable1991@gmail.comRyan's Books: https://thesecretteachings.info- EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / rdgable1991@gmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

Disease accelerates years in a month. Cancer cells reveal which patients might be most impacted by metastasis - a diagnosis invisible on Earth. Single crystals heal themselves through mechanisms we can't explain. These aren't projections. They're validated results from 2022-2025 that made 40-year NASA veterans say they'd never seen anything like it.The economics flipped. Merck flew Keytruda 30 days, discovered a crystal form missed in a decade of labs - $20B/year by 2030, exceeding SpaceX's entire revenue. The thesis: Two paths to space affordability: cut launch costs 10x AND multiply payload value 1,000x. Do what Earth cannot do at any price.Paradigm Shifts:

Synopsis: Fresh from the JPM 2026 in San Francisco, Alok Tayi welcomes Johan Luthman, Executive Vice President of R&D at Lundbeck, for a sweeping, deeply personal conversation on the future of neuroscience drug development. From his early days as a Swedish clinician-scientist to leading breakthrough Alzheimer's programs and rebuilding Lundbeck's pipeline from the ground up, Johan shares the pivotal moments—and phone calls—that shaped a 30-year career across AstraZeneca, Merck, Serono, and now Denmark's neuroscience powerhouse. The discussion dives into Lundbeck's bold strategic reset: letting biology lead, de-risking early in patients, embracing rare disease and sleep medicine, and making disciplined bets on monoclonal antibodies, migraine prevention, epilepsy, and neuroendocrine disorders. Johan explains how the company shifted capital toward innovation, rebuilt its portfolio through targeted acquisitions, and built one of the most advanced neuroscience pipelines in pharma today. In one of the episode's most powerful moments, Johan opens up about his personal motivation—caring for family members with Alzheimer's and dedicating his career to diseases of the brain. From AI-driven R&D productivity and adaptive trials to Denmark's unique foundation-owned pharma model, this conversation is a masterclass in scientific rigor, decision-making under uncertainty, and keeping patients at the center of everything. Biography: In 1991, Johan Luthman began his career in the pharmaceutical industry in Astra, later AstraZeneca. In 2005, Johan joined Serono as Head of Neuroscience & Immunology Research, and subsequently, in MerckSerono, as Therapy Area Head, Neurology & Immunology. In 2009, he became CEO of biotech start-up GeNeuro. In late 2009, Johan joined Merck as VP & Franchise Integrator for Neuroscience and Ophthalmology. In 2014, he came to Eisai where he was Senior Vice President and Head of Clinical Development. Johan joined Lundbeck as Executive Vice President, R&D in March 2019. Johan is a Swedish national and is trained as a Doctor of Dental Sciences from the Karolinska Institute, Sweden. He also holds a PhD in Neurobiology and Histology as well as an Associate Professor title from the Karolinska Institute, Sweden. Johan is a Member of the Board of Directors of Brain+.

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Anja Ettel und Philipp Vetter über Donald Trumps Auftritt in Davos, Zoff bei Lululemon, Optimismus bei US-Airlines und neue Nukelar-Euphorie. Außerdem geht es um United Airlines, Delta Airlines, American Airlines, Johnson&Johnson, Kraft Heinz, Berkshire Hathaway, NuScale Power, Nano Nuclear Energy, Oklo, enCore Energy, Uranium Energy, Nvidia, Siemens, ABB, Schneider Electric, Siemens Energy, Legrand, Prysmian, Safran, Rolls-Royce, Rheinmetall, NextEra Energy, Union Pacific, Enbridge, Duke Energy, SAP, Mastercard, Visa, Bank of America, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Pfizer, Merck, Eli Lilly, iShares Stoxx Europe 600 Industrials ETF (WKN: A0H08J), L&G Robotics and Automation ETF (WKN: A12DB1) und iShares Global Infrastructure ETF (WKN: A0LEW9). Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Der Börsen-Podcast Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Anja Ettel und Philipp Vetter über den schlechtesten Tag an der Wallstreet seit dem Liberation Day, neue Netflix-Zahlen und jede Menge Pharma-Schlagzeilen. Außerdem geht es um Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Royal Caribbean, Netflix, Warner Brothers Discovery, Fresenius Medical Care, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Fresenius, Novavax, Pfizer, Moderna, Merck, GSK, ⁠RAPT Therapeutics, Qiagen, 3M und Disney. Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Der Börsen-Podcast Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

The latest guest on The PR Week podcast is one of the best-known in-house communications executives in the industry: Jonathan Adashek, senior vice president of marketing and communications at IBM. He talks about how IBM's leadership set a clear course for the company in areas such as AI and technology at large and why former CEO Louis Gerstner has been rightly credited with “saving” the company. Plus, the biggest marketing and communications news of the week, including people moves at Carnival Cruise Line, Avoq and Merck; an intriguing midsize agency acquisition and Bombas' reaction to being made a joke at the Golden Globes. PRWeek.comTheme music provided by TRIPLE SCOOP MUSICJaymes - First One Follow us: @PRWeekUSReceive the latest industry news, insights, and special reports. Start Your Free 1-Month Trial Subscription To PRWeek Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A rocky start to the week as the market looks on with unease at the latest Trump administration move against Fed independence, but the move could also be about this story reinforcing a wider pattern. Elsewhere, Merck is pursuing a giant acquisition, earnings season is set to kick off tomorrow and more. Today's pod hosted by Saxo Global Head of Macro Strategy John J. Hardy.  Sign up for the webinar John will host with Chief Economist at CME Group Erik Norland on the outlook across markets - tomorrow at 1200 GMT. Links discussed on the podcast and our Chart of the Day can be found on the John J. Hardy substack (within one to four hours from the time of the podcast release). Read daily in-depth market updates from the Saxo Market Call and the Saxo Strategy Team here. Please reach out to us at marketcall@saxobank.com for feedback and questions. Click here to open an account with Saxo. Intro and outro music by AShamaluevMusic DISCLAIMER This content is marketing material. Trading financial instruments carries risks. Always ensure that you understand these risks before trading. This material does not contain investment advice or an encouragement to invest in a particular manner. Historic performance is not a guarantee of future results. The instrument(s) referenced in this content may be issued by a partner, from whom Saxo Bank A/S receives promotional fees, payment or retrocessions. While Saxo may receive compensation from these partnerships, all content is created with the aim of providing clients with valuable information and options.

We love to hear from our listeners. Send us a message. On this week's episode of the Business of Biotech, we're speaking with Kenneth Galbraith, CEO and Board Chair at Zymeworks, a biotech developing multispecific therapies internally and through partnerships with companies including Jazz Pharmaceuticals and BeOne Medicines (formerly BeiGene), J&J, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, and GSK. Ken talks about Zymeworks' shift to a royalty model for development funding and value creation, lessons learned from platform deals and cross-border R&D, the benefits of strong royalty agreements and backloaded milestone payments over headline upfronts, and industry dynamics for the coming year. Ken also shares insights from his deep experiences as a biotech investor and corporate director, and explains why scientific primacy should always drive biotech business decisions.         Access this and hundreds of episodes of the Business of Biotech videocast under the Business of Biotech tab at lifescienceleader.com. Subscribe to our monthly Business of Biotech newsletter. Get in touch with guest and topic suggestions: ben.comer@lifescienceleader.comFind Ben Comer on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bencomer/

Dr. Hope Rugo and Dr. Vivek Subbiah discuss innovative trial designs to enable robust studies for smaller patient populations, as well as the promise of precision medicine, novel therapeutic approaches, and global partnerships to advance rare cancer research and improve patient outcomes. TRANSCRIPT  Dr. Hope Rugo: Hello and welcome to By the Book, a podcast series from ASCO that features engaging conversations between editors and authors of the ASCO Educational Book. I am your host, Dr. Hope Rugo. I am the director of the Women's Cancers Program and division chief of breast medical oncology at the City of Hope Cancer Center [in Los Angeles]. The field of rare cancer research is rapidly transforming thanks to progress in clinical trials and treatment strategies, as well as improvements in precision medicine and next-generation sequencing that enable biomarker identification. According to the National Cancer Institute, rare cancers occur in fewer than 150 cases per million each year, but collectively, they represent a significant portion of all cancer diagnoses. And we struggle with the appropriate treatment for these rare cancers in clinical practice. Today, I am delighted to be joined by Dr. Vivek Subbiah, a medical oncologist and the chief of early-phase drug development at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute in Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Subbiah is the lead author of a paper in the ASCO Educational Book titled "Designing Clinical Trials for Patients with Rare Cancers: Connecting the Zebras," a great title for this topic. He will be telling us about innovative trial designs to enable robust studies for small patient populations, the promise of precision medicine, and novel therapeutic approaches to improve outcomes, and how we can leverage AI now to enroll more patients with rare cancers in clinical trials. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Subbiah, it is great to have you on the podcast today. Thanks so much for being here. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much, Dr. Rugo, and it is an honor and pleasure being here. And thank you for doing this podcast for rare cancers. Dr. Hope Rugo: Absolutely. We are excited to talk to you. And congratulations on this fantastic paper. It is such a great resource for our community to better understand what is new in the field of rare cancer research. Of course, rare cancers are complex and multifaceted diseases. And this is a huge challenge for clinical oncologists. You know, our clinics, of course, cannot be designed as we are being very uni-cancer focused to just be for one cancer that is very rare. So, oncologists have to be a jack of all trades in this area. Your paper notes that there are approximately 200 distinct types of rare and ultra-rare cancers. And, by definition, all pediatric cancers are rare cancers. Of course, clinical trials are essential for developing new treatment strategies and improving patient outcomes, and in your paper, you highlight some unique challenges in conducting trials in this rare cancer space. Can you tell us about the challenges and how really innovative trial designs, I think a key issue, are being tailored to the specific needs of patients with rare cancer and, importantly, for these trials? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Rare cancers present a perfect storm of challenges. First, the patient populations are very small, which makes it really hard to recruit enough participants for traditional type trials. Second, these patients are often geographically dispersed across multiple cities, across multiple states, across multiple countries, across multiple zip codes. So, logistics become complicated. Third, there is often limited awareness among clinicians, which delays referrals and diagnosis. Add to that regulatory hurdles, funding constraints, and you can see why rare cancer trials are so tough to execute. To overcome these barriers, we are seeing some really creative novel trial designs. And there are four different types of trial designs that are helping with enrolling patients with rare cancers. The first one is the basket trial. So let us talk about what basket studies are. Basket studies group patients based on shared genetic biomarkers or shared genetic mutations rather than tumor type. So instead of running separate 20 to 30 to 40 trials, you can study one therapy across multiple cancers. The second type of trial is the umbrella trial. The umbrella trials flip that concept of basket studies. They focus on one cancer type but test multiple targeted therapies within it. The third category of innovative trials are the platform studies. Platform trials are another exciting innovation. They allow new treatment arms to be added or removed as the data matures and as the data evolves, making trials more adaptive and efficient. The final category are decentralized tools in traditional trials, which are helping patients participate closer to where they are so that they can sleep in their own bed, which is, I think, a game changer for accessibility.  These designs maximize efficiency and feasibility for rare cancer research and rare cancer clinical trials. Dr. Hope Rugo: I love the idea of the platform trials that are decentralized. And I know that there is a trial being worked on with ARPA-H (Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health) funding in triple-negative breast cancer as well as in lung cancer, I think, and others with this idea of a platform trial. But it is challenged, I think, by precision medicine and next-generation sequencing where some patients do not have targetable markers, or there isn't a drug to target the marker. I think those are almost the same thing. We have really seen that these precision medicine ideas and NGS have moved the needle in helping to identify genetic alterations. This helps us to be more personalized. It actually helps with platform studies to customize trial enrollment. And we hope that this will result in better outcomes. It also allows us, I think, to study drugs even in the early stage setting more effectively. How can these advances be best applied to the future of rare cancers, as well as the challenges of not finding a marker or not having a drug? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much for that question. I think precision medicine and next-gen sequencing, or NGS, are truly the backbone of modern precision oncology. They have transformed how we think about cancer treatment. Instead of treating based on where the tumor originated or where the tumor started, we now look at the genetic blueprint of cancer. The NGS or next-gen sequencing allows us to sequence millions of DNA fragments quickly. Twenty, 30 years ago, they said we cannot sequence a human genome. Then it took almost a decade to sequence the first human genome. Right now, we have academic centers and commercial sequencing companies that are really democratizing NGS across all sites, not just in academic centers, across all the community sites, so that NGS is now accessible. This means that we can identify these actionable alterations like picking needles in haystacks, like NTRK fusions, RET fusions, or BRAF V600E alterations, high tumor mutational burden. This might occur across not one tumor type, across several different tumor types. So for rare cancers, this is critical because some of these mutations often define the best treatment option. Here is why this matters. Personalized therapy, right? Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, we can tailor treatment to the patient's unique molecular profile. For trial enrollment, this can definitely help because patients can join biomarker-driven trials even if their cancer type is rare or ultra-rare. NGS technology has also helped us in designing rational studies. Many times monotherapy does not work in these cancers. So we are thinking about rational combination strategies. So NGS technology is helping us. Looking ahead, I see NGS becoming routine in clinical practice, not just at major niche academic centers, but everywhere. We will see more tumor-agnostic approvals, more molecular tumor boards guiding treatment decisions in real time. And I think we are seeing an expanded biomarker setup. Previously, we used to have only a few drugs and a handful of mutations. Now with homologous recombination defects, BRCA1/2 mutation, and expanding the HRD and also immunohistochemistry, we are expanding the biomarker portfolio. So again, I personally believe that the future is precision. What I mean by precision is delivering the right drug to the right patient at the right time. And for rare cancers, this isn't just progress. It is survival. And it is maybe the only way that they can have access to these cutting-edge precision medicines. Dr. Hope Rugo: That is so important. You mentioned an important area we will get to in a moment, the tumor-agnostic therapies. But as part of talking about that, do you think that the trials should also include just standard therapies? You know, who do you give an ADC to and when with these rare cancers? Because some of them do not have biomarkers to target and it is so disappointing for patients and providers where you are trying to screen a patient for a trial or a platform trial where you have one arm with this mutation, one arm with that, and they do not qualify because they only have a p53 loss, you know? They just do not have the marker that helps them. But we see this in breast cancer all the time. And it is tough because we don't have good information on the sequencing. So I wonder, you know, just because for some of these rare cancers it is not even clear what to use when with standard treatments. And then that kind of gets into this idea of the tumor-agnostic therapies that you mentioned. There are a lot of new treatments that are being evaluated. We have seen approval of some treatments in the last few years that are tumor-agnostic and based on a biomarker. Is that the best approach as we go forward for rare cancers? And what new treatment options are most exciting to you right now? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Tumor-agnostic therapies, really close to my heart, are real breakthrough therapies and represent a major paradigm shift in oncology. Traditionally, for the broad listeners here, we are used to thinking about designing clinical trials and therapy like where the cancer originated, breast cancer, kidney cancer, prostate cancer, lung cancer. A tumor-agnostic therapy flips that model. Instead of focusing on the organ, they target the specific genetic alteration or biomarker that drives cancer growth regardless of where the tumor started, regardless of the location of the tumor, regardless of the zip code of the tumor. So why is this so important for rare cancers? Because many rare cancers share molecular features with more common cancers. For instance, NTRK fusion might occur in pediatric sarcoma, a salivary gland tumor, or a thyroid cancer. Historically, each of these would require separate trials, which is nearly impossible, unfeasible to conduct in these ultra-rare cancers like salivary gland cancer or pediatric sarcomas. Tumor-agnostic therapies allow us to treat all those cancers with the same targeted drug if they share that biomarker. Again, we are in 2025. The first tissue-agnostic approval, the historic precedent, was in fact an immunotherapy. Pembrolizumab was approved in 2017, May 2017, as the first immunotherapy to be approved in a tumor-agnostic way for a genomic biomarker, for MSI-High and dMMR cancers. Then came the NTRK inhibitors. So today we have not one, not two, but three different NTRK inhibitors: larotrectinib, entrectinib, and repotrectinib, which show response rates of nearly more than 60 to 75% across a handful of dozens and dozens of cancer types. Then, of course, we have RET inhibitors like selpercatinib, which is approved tissue-agnostic, and pralsetinib, which also shows tissue-agnostic activity across multiple cancers. And more recently, combination therapy with a BRAF and MEK combination, dabrafenib and trametinib, received tumor-agnostic approval for all BRAF V600E tumors with the exception of colorectal cancer. And even recently, you mentioned about antibody drug conjugates. Again, I think we live in an era of antibody drug conjugates. And Enhertu, trastuzumab deruxtecan, which was used first in breast cancer, now it is approved in a histology-agnostic manner for all HER2-positive tumors defined by immunohistochemistry 3+. So again, beyond NGS, now immunohistochemistry for HER2 is also becoming a biomarker. So again, for the broad listeners here, in addition to comprehensive NGS that may allow patients to find treatment options for these rare cancers for NTRK, RET, and BRAF, immunohistochemistry for HER2 positivity is also emerging as a biomarker given that we have a new FDA approval for this. So I would say personally that these therapies are game changers because they open doors for patients who previously had no options. Instead of waiting for years for a trial in their specific cancer type, they can access a treatment based on their molecular profile. I think it is precision medicine at its finest and best. Looking ahead, the third question you asked me is what is exciting going on? I think we will see more of these approvals. My hope is that today, I think we have nine to ten approvals. My hope is that within the next 25 to 50 years, we will have at least 50 to 100 drugs approved in this space based on a biomarker, not based on a location of the tumor type. Drug targeting rare alterations like FGFR2 fusions, FGFR amplifications, ALK fusions, and even complex signatures like high tumor mutational burden. I think we will be seeing hopefully more and more drugs approved. And as sequencing becomes routine, we will identify more patients for these therapies. I think for rare cancers, this is not just innovative approach. This is essential for them to access these novel precision medicines. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, that is such a good point. I do think it is critical. Interestingly in breast cancer, it hasn't been, you know, there is always like two patients in these tumor-agnostic trials, or if that. You know, I think I have seen one NTRK fusion ever. I think that highlights the importance for rare cancers. And you know, I am hoping that that will translate into some new directions for some of our rarer and impossible-to-treat subtypes of breast cancer. It is this kind of research that is really going to make a difference. But what about those people who do not have biomarkers? What if you do not fit into that? Do you think there is a possibility of trying to do treatments for rare cancers in some prospective way that would help with that? You know, it is really a huge challenge. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Absolutely. I think, you know, you're right, usually many of these rare cancers are driven by specific biomarkers. And again, some of the pediatric salivary gland tumors or pediatric sarcomas like fibrosarcomas, they are pathognomonic with NTRK fusions. And again, given that we have a tumor-agnostic approval, now these patients have access to these therapies. And I do not think that we would have had a trial just for pediatric fibrosarcomas with NTRK fusions. So that is one way. Another way is SWOG, right? The SWOG DART [1609] had this combination dual checkpoint, it was called the DART study dual combination chemotherapy with ipi/nivo. Now here the rare cancer subtype itself becomes a biomarker and they showed activity across multiple rare cancer subtypes. They didn't require a biomarker. As long as it was a rare or ultra-rare cancer, these patients were enrolled into the SWOG DART trial and multiple arms have read out. Angiosarcoma, Kaposi sarcoma, even gestational trophoblastic disease. Again, they have shown responses in these ultra-rare, rare cancers. Sometimes they might be seeing one or two cases a whole year. And I think this SWOG effort, this cooperative group effort, really highlighted the need for such studies without biomarkers as well. Dr. Hope Rugo: That is such a fantastic example of how to try and treat patients in a collaborative way. And in the paper, you also emphasize the need for collaborative research efforts, you know, uniting resource expertise across different ways of doing research. So cooperative groups, advocacy organizations that can really help advance rare cancer research, improve access to new therapies, and I think importantly influence policy changes. I think this already happened with the agnostic approvals. Could you tell us more about that? How can we move forward with this most effectively? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Personally, I believe that collaboration is absolutely critical and essential for rare cancer research. No single institution, no single individual, or no single state or entity can tackle these challenges alone. The patient populations are small and dispersed. So pooling resources is the only way to run these meaningful trials. Again, it is not like singing, it is like putting a huge, huge, I would say, an opera piece together. It is not a solo, vocal therapy, but rather putting a huge opera piece like Turandot. You know, you mentioned cooperative groups. Cooperative groups, as I mentioned earlier, the SWOG DART program, the ASCO [TAPUR study]. ASCO is doing a phenomenal work of the TAPUR study. Again, this ASCO TAPUR program has enrolled so many patients with rare cancers who otherwise would not have treatment options. NCI-MATCH, the global effort, right? NCI-MATCH and the ComboMATCH are great examples. They bring together hundreds of sites, thousands of clinicians to run large-scale trials that would be impossible for any individual center or institution. These trials have already changed practice. For instance, the DART demonstrated the power of immunotherapy in rare cancers and influenced NCCN guidelines. One of the arms of the NCI-MATCH study from the BRAF V600E arm contributed towards the BRAF V600E tissue-agnostic approval. So, the BRAF V600E tissue-agnostic approval was by a pooled analysis of several studies. The ROAR study, the Rare Oncology Agnostic Research study, the NCI-MATCH dataset of tumor-agnostic cohort, and another pediatric trial, and also evidence from literature and evidence of case reports. And all this pooled analysis contributed to the tissue-agnostic approval of BRAF V600E across multiple rare cancers. There are several patient advocacy organizations which are the real unsung heroes here. Groups like, for instance, we mentioned in the paper, Target Cancer Foundation, don't just raise awareness for rare cancer research, they actively connect patients to trials providing financial, emotional support, and even run their own studies like the TRACK trial. They also influence policy to make access easier. On a global scale, initiatives like DRUP in the Netherlands, the ROME study in Italy, the PCM4EU in Europe are expanding precision medicine across these borders. These collaborations accelerate research, improve trial enrollment, and ensure patients everywhere can have access to these cutting-edge therapies. Again, it is truly a team effort, right? It is a multi-stakeholder approach. Researchers, clinicians, investigators, industry, regulators, academia, patients, patient advocates, and their caregivers all working together. And it takes a village. Dr. Hope Rugo: Absolutely. I mean, what a nice response to that. And I think really exciting and it is great to see your passion about this as well. But it helps all of us, I think, getting discouraged in treating these cancers to understand what is happening moving forward. And I think it is also a fabulous opportunity for our junior colleagues as they rise up in academics to be involved in these international collaborative efforts which are further expanding. One of the things that comes up for clinical trials for patients, and I think it is highlighted with rare cancers because, as you mentioned, people are all over the place, you know, they are so rare. They are all far away. Our patients are always saying to us, "Should I go here for a phase 1 trial?" Can you talk a little bit about how we can overcome these financial and geographic burdens for the patients? You talked about having trials locally, but it is a big financial and just social burden for patients. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Great point. Financial cost is a major barrier in rare cancer clinical trials. It is a major barrier not just in rare cancer clinical trials, but in clinical trials in general. The economics of rare cancer research are one of the toughest challenges we face. Developing a new drug is already expensive, often billions of dollars. On an average, it takes 2 billion dollars or 2.8 billion dollars according to some data from drug discovery to approval. For rare cancers, the market is tiny, which means the pharmaceutical companies have really little financial incentive to invest. That is why initiatives like the Orphan Drug Act were created to provide tax credits, grants, and market exclusivity to encourage development for rare diseases. Clinical trials themselves are expensive because the small patient populations mean longer recruitment times and higher per-patient costs. Geographic dispersion, as you mentioned, for the patients adds travel, coordination. That is why we need to think out of the box about decentralized trial infrastructure so that we can mitigate some of these expenses. Complex trial designs like basket or platform trials sometimes require sophisticated data systems and regulatory oversight. That is a challenge. And I think some of the pragmatic studies like ASCO TAPUR have overcome those challenges. Advanced technologies like next-gen sequencing and molecular profiling also add significant upfront cost to this. Funding is also limited because rare cancers receive less attention compared to common cancers. Public funding and cooperative group trials help a lot, but I think they cannot cover everything. Patient advocacy organizations sometimes step in to bridge these gaps, but sustainable financing remains a huge challenge. So, the bottom line is without financial incentives and collaborating funding models, many promising therapies for rare cancers would never make it to patients. That is why we need system-wide policy changes, global partnerships, and innovative, effective, seamless trial designs which are so critical so that they can help reduce the cost and make research feasible so that we can deliver the right drug to the right patient at the right time. Dr. Hope Rugo: There is a lot of excitement about the future integration of AI in screening. Just at the San Antonio Breast Cancer meetings, we have a number of different presentations about AI to find markers, even like HER2, and using AI where you would screen and then match patients to clinical trials. Do you have any guidance for the rare cancer community on how to leverage this technology in order to optimize patient enrollment and, I think, identification of the best treatment matches? Dr. Vivek Subbiah: I think artificial intelligence, AI, is a game-changer in the making. Right now, clinical trial is clunky. Matching patients to trial is often manual, time consuming, laborious. You need a lot of personnel to do that. AI can automate this process by analyzing genomic data, medical records, and trial eligibility criteria to find the best matches quickly, accurately, and effectively. For the community, the key is to invest in data standardization and interoperability because AI needs clean, structured data to work effectively. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you so much, Dr. Subbiah, for sharing these fantastic insights with us on the podcast today and for your excellent article. Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Thank you so much. Dr. Hope Rugo: We thank you, our listeners, for joining us today. You will find a link to Dr. Subbiah's Educational Book article in the transcript of this episode. And please join us again next month on By the Book for more insightful views on key issues and innovations that are shaping modern oncology.  Thank you. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:        Dr. Hope Rugo   @hoperugo   Dr. Vivek Subbiah @VivekSubbiah Follow ASCO on social media:        ASCO on X  ASCO on Bluesky       ASCO on Facebook        ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:       Dr. Hope Rugo:    Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma   Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer   Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx   Dr. Vivek Subbiah: Consulting/Advisory Role: Loxo/Lilly, Illumina, AADI, Foundation Medicine, Relay Therapeutics, Pfizer, Roche, Bayer, Incyte, Novartis, Pheon Therapeutics, Abbvie Research Funding (Inst.): Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, NanoCarrier, Northwest Biotherapeutics, Genentech/Roche, Berg Pharma, Bayer, Incyte, Fujifilm, PharmaMar, D3 Oncology Solutions, Pfizer, Amgen, Abbvie, Mutlivir, Blueprint Medicines, Loxo, Vegenics, Takeda, Alfasigma, Agensys, Idera, Boston Biomedical, Inhibrx, Exelixis, Amgen, Turningpoint Therapeutics, Relay Therapeutics Other Relationship: Medscape, Clinical Care Options

The 5 things you need to know before the stock market opens today: Merck is reportedly in talks to buy cancer drugmaker Revolution Medicines, fitness tracking app Strava will confidentially file for an IPO, Saks may be nearing a deal for a bankruptcy financing package of over $1B, Paramount Skydance is exploring adding strategic partners to its stake in MTV, and NASA will bring a crew home from space after they detected a “serious medical condition” aboard the ISS.  Squawk Box is hosted by Joe Kernen, Becky Quick and Andrew Ross Sorkin.  Follow Squawk Pod for the best moments, interviews and analysis from our TV show in an audio-first format. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Hope Rugo discuss advances in antibody-drug conjugates for various breast cancer types as well as treatment strategies in the new era of oral SERDs for HR-positive breast cancer. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I'm a medical oncologist and vice chair of academic affairs here at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles. Today, I'm thrilled to be joined by Dr. Hope Rugo, an internationally renowned breast medical oncologist and my colleague here at City of Hope, where she leads the Women's Cancers Program and serves as division chief of breast medical oncology. Dr. Rugo is going to share with us exciting advances in antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) that are expanding treatment options in various breast cancer types. She'll also address some of the complex questions arising in the new era of oral SERDs (selective estrogen receptor degraders) that are revolutionizing treatment in the hormone receptor-positive breast cancer space. Our full disclosures are available in the transcript of this episode.  Dr. Rugo, welcome, and thanks so much for being on the podcast today. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you. Pleasure to be here. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'm going to switch to first names if you don't mind.  The first topic is actually a really exciting one, Hope, and this is antibody-drug conjugates. I don't know if I've ever shared this with you, but I actually started my training at UCLA, I was a med student and resident there, and it was in Dennis Slamon's lab. I worked very closely with Mark Pegram and a handful of others. This is right around the time I think a lot of HER2-directed therapies were really evolving initially in the clinics. Now we've got antibody-drug conjugates. Our audience is well-familiar with the mechanism there but tell us about how ADCs have really started to reshape therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer. Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I mean, this is a really great place to start. I mean, we have had such major advances in breast cancer just this year, I think really changing the paradigm of treating patients. But HER2-positive disease, we've been used to having sequenced success of new agents. And I think the two biggest areas where we've made advances in HER2-positive disease, which were remarkably advanced this year in 2025, have been in antibody-drug conjugates with trastuzumab deruxtecan and with new oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that have less of a target on EGFR and more on HER2, so they have an overall more tolerable toxicity profile and therefore a potentially better efficacy in the clinic. At least that's what we're seeing with these new strategies that we couldn't really pursue in the past because of toxicities of the oral TKIs. So, although our topic is ADCs, I'm going to include the TKI because it's so important in our thinking about treating HER2-positive disease. In the metastatic setting, we've seen these remarkable improvements in progression-free and overall survival in the second-line setting with T-DXd, or trastuzumab deruxtecan, compared to T-DM1. And then sequencing ADCs with giving T-DXd after T-DM1 was better than an oral tyrosine kinase or a trastuzumab combination with standard chemotherapy. That was DESTINY-Breast03 and DESTINY-Breast02. So, then we've had other trials since then, and T-DXd has moved into the early-stage setting, which I'll talk about in just a moment. But the next big trial for T-DXd in HER2-positive disease was moving it to the first-line setting to supplant what has become an established treatment for now quite a long time: the so-called CLEOPATRA regimen, which used the combined antibodies trastuzumab, pertuzumab with a taxane as first-line therapy. And then we've proceeded on with maintenance with ongoing HP for patients with responding or stable disease. And we'd seen long-term data showing, you know, at 8 years there was a group of patients whose cancers had never progressed and continued improved overall survival. So, T-DXd was studied in DESTINY-Breast09, either alone or in combination with pertuzumab compared to THP. The patient population had received a little bit more prior treatment, but interestingly, not a lot compared to CLEOPATRA. And they designed the trial to be T-DXd continued until progression with or without pertuzumab versus THP, which would go for six cycles and then stop around six cycles, and then stop and continue HP. Patients who had hormone receptor-positive disease could use hormone therapy, and this is one of the issues with this dataset because, surprisingly in this dataset and one other I'll mention, very few patients took hormone therapy. And even in the maintenance trial, the HER2CLIMB-05, less than 50% took hormone therapy as maintenance. This is kind of shocking to me and highlights an area of really important education, that outcome is improved when you add endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive HER2-positive metastatic disease in the maintenance phase, and it's a really important part of treatment. But suffice it to say, you know, you're kind of studying continued chemo versus stopping chemo in maintenance. And T-DXd, as we all expected, in combination with pertuzumab was superior to THP in terms of progression-free survival, really remarkably improved. And you could stop the chemo with toxicity, but most people continued it with T-DXd. Again, not a lot of people got hormone therapy, which is an issue, and you stop the chemo in the control arm. So, this has brought up a lot of interest in trying to use T-DXd as an induction and then go to maintenance, much as we do with the CLEOPATRA regimen with hormone therapy. But it brings up another issue. So first, T-DXd is superior; it's a great treatment. Not everybody needs to have it because we don't know whether it's better to give T-DXd first or second with progression - that we need a little bit longer follow-up. But just earlier this week, interestingly, the third week of December, the U.S. FDA approved T-DXd in the DESTINY-Breast09 approach with pertuzumab. So as I mentioned earlier, there was a T-DXd-alone arm; that arm has not yet reported. So very interesting, we don't know if you need pertuzumab or not. So what about the maintenance? That's the other area where we've made a huge advance here. So, we all want to stop chemo and we want to stop T-DXd. You don't want somebody being nauseated for two years while they're on treatment, and also there's a small number of patients with mostly de novo metastatic HER2-positive disease who are cured of their disease. We'd like to expand that, and I think these new drugs give us the opportunity to improve the number of patients who might be cured from metastatic disease. So the first maintenance study we saw was adding palbociclib, the CDK4/6 inhibitor, to endocrine therapy and HP, essentially. There, we had a remarkable improvement in progression-free survival difference of 15.2 months: 29 to 44 months, really huge. At San Antonio this year, we saw data with this oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor tucatinib, already showed it was great in a triplet, but as maintenance in combination with HP, it showed also a remarkable improvement in progression-free survival. But the numbers were all shifted down. So in PATINA, the control arm was in the 24-month range; here it was the tucatinib-HP arm that was in the 25 months and 16 months for control. So there was a differential benefit in ER-negative and ER-positive disease. So I think we're all thinking that our ideal approach moving forward would be to give T-DXd to most patients, we see how they do, and treat to best response. And then, stop the T-DXd, start HP, trastuzumab, pertuzumab for ER-negative, with tucatinib for ER-positive with palbociclib. We also have early data that suggests that both approaches may reduce the development of brain metastases, an issue in HER2-positive disease, and delay time to progression of brain metastases as seen in HER2CLIMB-05 in very early data - small numbers, but still quite intriguing that you might delay progression of brain metastases with tucatinib that clearly has efficacy in the brain.  So, I think that this is a hugely exciting advance for our patients, and these approaches are quickly moving into the early stage setting. T-DXd compared to standard chemo, essentially followed by THP, so a sequenced approach resulted in more pathologic complete responses than a standard THP-AC-type neoadjuvant therapy. T-DXd alone for eight cycles wasn't better, and that's interesting. We still need the sequenced non-cross-resistant chemo. But I think even more importantly, the data from DESTINY-Breast05 looking at T-DXd versus T-DM1 in patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant HER2-targeted therapy showed a remarkable improvement in invasive disease-free survival with T-DXd versus T-DM1, and quite early. It was a high-risk population, higher risk than the T-DM1 trial with KATHERINE, but earlier readout with a remarkable improvement in outcome. We expect to be FDA approved sometime in the first half of 2026. So then we'll get patients who've already had T-DXd who get metastatic disease. But my hope is that with T-DXd, maybe with tucatinib in the right group of patients or even sequenced in very high-risk disease, that we could cure many more patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer and cure a subset, a greater subset of patients with de novo metastatic disease. Dr. Monty Pal: That's brilliant. And you tackled so many questions that I was going to follow up with there: brain metastases, etc. That was sort of looming in my mind. I mean, general thoughts on an ADC versus a TKI in the context of brain mets? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, it's an interesting question because T-DXd has shown quite good efficacy in this setting. And tucatinib, of course, had a trial where they took patients with new brain mets, so a larger population than we've seen yet for the T-DXd trials, and saw that not only did they delay progression of brain metastases and result in shrinkage of existing untreated brain mets, but that patients who develop a new brain met, they could stay on the same assigned treatment. They got stereotactic radiation, and then the patients who were on tucatinib with trastuzumab and capecitabine had a further delay in progression of brain mets compared to those on the placebo arm, even after treatment of a new one that developed on treatment. So, I think it's hard. I think most of us for a lot of brain mets might start with the tucatinib approach, but T-DXd is also a very important treatment. You know, you're kind of trading off a diarrhea, some liver enzyme elevations with tucatinib versus nausea, which you really have to work on managing because it can be long-delayed nausea, and this risk of ILD, interstitial lung disease, that's about 12%, with most but not all trials showing a mortality rate from interstitial lung disease of just under 1 percent. In the early-stage setting, it was really interesting to see that with T-DXd getting four cycles in the neoadjuvant setting, a lot less ILD noted than the patients who got up to 14 cycles, as I think they got a median of 10 cycles in the post-surgical setting, there was a little bit more ILD. But I think we're going to be better and better at finding this earlier and preventing mortality by just stopping drug and treating earlier with steroids. Dr. Monty Pal: And this ILD issue, it always seems to resurface. There are drugs that I use in my kidney cancer clinic, everolimus, common to perhaps the breast cancer clinic as well, pembrolizumab, where I think the pattern of pneumonitis is quite different, right? What is your strategy for recognizing pneumonitis early in this context? Dr. Hope Rugo: Well, it is, and you know, having done the very early studies in everolimus where we gave it in the neoadjuvant setting and we're like, "Hmm, the patient came in with a cough. What's going on?" You know, we didn't know. And you have mouth sores, you know, we were learning about the drug as we were giving it. What we don't do with everolimus and CDK4/6 inhibitors, for example, is grade 1 changes like radiation pneumonitis, we don't stop, we don't treat it. We only treat for symptoms. But because of the mortality associated with T-DXd, albeit small, we stop drug for grade 1 imaging-only asymptomatic pneumonitis, and some of us treat with a half dose of steroids just to try and hasten recovery. We've actually now published or presented a couple of datasets from trials, a pooled analysis and a real-world analysis, that have looked at patients who were retreated after grade 1 pneumonitis or ILD and tolerated drug very well and none of them died of interstitial lung disease, which was really great to see because you can retreat safely and some of these patients stayed on for almost a year benefiting from treatment. So, there's a differential toxicity profile with these drugs and there are risk factors which clearly have identified those at higher risk: prior ILD, for example. A French group said smoking; other people haven't found that, maybe because they smoked more in France, I don't know. And being of Japanese descent is quite interesting. The studies just captured that you were treated in Japan, but I think it's probably being of Japanese descent with many drugs that increases your risk of ILD. And, you know, older patients, people who have hypoxia, those are the patients. So, how do we do this? With everolimus, we don't have specific monitoring. But for T-DXd we do; we do every nine weeks to start with and then every 12 weeks CT scans because most of the events occur relatively early. Somebody who's older and at higher risk now get the first CT at six weeks. Dr. Monty Pal: This is super helpful. And I have to tell you, a lot of these drugs are permeating the bladder cancer space which, you know, is ultimately going to be a component of my practice, so thank you for all this. We could probably stay on this topic of HER2-positive disease forever. I'm super interested in that space still. But let me shift gears a little bit and talk about triple-negative breast cancer and this evolving space of HR-positive, HER2-low breast cancer. I mean, tell us about ADCs in that very sort of other broad area. Dr. Hope Rugo: So triple-negative disease is the absolute hardest subset of disease that we have to treat because if you don't have a great response in the early stage setting, the median survival is very short, you know, under two years for the majority of TNBCs, with the exception of the small percentage of low proliferative disease subsets. The co-question is what do we do for these patients and how do we improve outcome? And sacituzumab govitecan has been one strategy in the later line setting that was shown to improve progression-free and overall survival, the Trop-2 ADC. We had recently three trials presented with the two ADCs, sacituzumab govitecan and the other Trop-2 ADC that's approved for HR-positive disease, datopotamab deruxtecan. And they were studied in the first-line setting. Two trials with SG, sacituzumab govitecan, those trials, one was PD-L1 positive, ASCENT-04. That showed that SG with a checkpoint inhibitor was superior, so pembrolizumab was superior to the standard KEYNOTE-355 type of treatment with either a taxane or gemcitabine and carboplatin with pembrolizumab for patients who have a combined positive score for PD-L1, 10 or greater. So, these are patients who are eligible for a checkpoint inhibitor, and SG resulted in an improved progression-free survival.  The interesting thing about that dataset is that few patients had received adjuvant or neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitor, which is fascinating because we give it to everybody now. But access is an issue and timing of the study enrollment was an issue. The other thing which I think we've all really applauded Gilead for is that there was automatic crossover. So, you could get from the company, to try and overcome some of the enormous disparities worldwide in access to these life-saving drugs, you could get SG through the company for free once you had blinded independent central review confirmation of disease progression. Now, a lot of the people who got the SG got it through their insurance, they didn't bill the company, but 80 percent of patients in the control arm received SG in the second-line setting. So that impacts your ability to look at overall survival, but it's an incredibly important component of these trials. So then at ESMO, we saw the data from SG and Dato-DXd in the first-line metastatic setting for patients who either had PD-L1-negative disease or weren't eligible for an immunotherapy. For the Dato study, TROPION-Breast02, that was 10 percent of the patients who had PD-L1-positive disease but didn't get a checkpoint inhibitor, and for the ASCENT-03 trial population it was only 1 percent. Importantly, the trials allowed patients who relapsed within a year of receiving their treatment with curative intent, and the Dato study, TB-02, allowed patients who relapsed while on treatment or within the first six months, and that was 15 percent of the 20 percent of early relapsers. The ASCENT trial, ASCENT-03, had 20 percent who relapsed between 6 and 12 months. The drugs were better than standard of care chemotherapy, the ADCs in both trials, which is very nice. Different toxicity profiles, different dosing intervals, but better than standard of care chemotherapy in the disease that's hardest for us to treat. And importantly, when you looked at the subset of early relapsers, those patients also did better with the ADC versus chemotherapy, which is incredibly important. And we were really interested in that 15 percent of patients who had early relapse. I actually think that six months thing was totally contrived, invented, you know, categorization and doesn't make any sense, and we should drop it. But the early relapsers were 15 percent of TB-02 and Dato was superior to standard of care chemo. We like survival, but the ASCENT trial again allowed the crossover to an approved ADC that improved survival and 80 percent of patients crossed over. In the Dato trial, they did not allow crossover, they didn't provide Dato, which isn't approved for TNBC but is for HR-positive disease, and they didn't allow, of course, pay for SG. So very few patients actually crossed over in their post-treatment data and in that study, they were able to show a survival benefit. So actually, I think in the U.S. where we can use approved drugs already before there's a fixed FDA approval, that people are already switching to use SG or Dato in the first-line setting for metastatic TNBC that's both PD-L1 positive for SG and PD-L1 negative for both drugs. And I think understanding the toxicity profiles of the two drugs is really important as well as the dosing interval to try and figure out which drug to use. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliant. Brilliant. Well, I'm going to shift gears a little bit. ADCs are a topic, again, just like HER2-positive disease we could stay on forever. Dr. Hope Rugo: Huge. Yes. Dr. Monty Pal: But we're going to shift gears to another massive topic, which is oral SERDs. In broad strokes, right, this utilization of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the context of HR-positive breast cancer is obviously, you know, a paradigm that's been well established at this point. Where do we sequence in oral SERDs? Where do they fit into this paradigm? Dr. Hope Rugo: Ha! This is a rapidly changing area; we keep changing what we're saying every other minute. And I think that there are three areas of great interest. So one is patients who develop ESR1 mutations that allow constitutive signaling through the estrogen receptor, even when there's not estrogen around, and that is a really important mutation that is subclonal; it develops under the pressure of treatment in about 40 percent of patients. And it doesn't happen when you first walk in the door. And what we've seen is that oral SERDs as single agents are better than standard single-agent endocrine therapy in that setting. The problem that we've had with that approach is that we're now really interested in giving targeted agents with our endocrine therapies, not just in the first-line setting where CDK4/6 inhibitors are our standard of care with survival benefit for ribociclib and, you know, survival benefit in subsets with other CDK4/6 inhibitors, and abemaciclib with a numeric improvement. So we give it first line. The question is, what do you do in the second-line setting? Because of the recent data, we now believe that oral SERDs should be really given with a targeted agent. And some datasets which were recently presented, which I think have helped us with that, have been EMBER-3 and then the most recently evERA BC, or evERA Breast Cancer, that looked at the oral SERD giredestrant with everolimus compared to standard of care endocrine therapy with everolimus, where 100 percent of patients received prior CDK4/6 inhibitor and showed a marked improvement in progression-free survival, including in the subsets of patients with a short response, 6-12 months of prior response to CDK4/6 inhibitor and in those who had a PIK3CA pathway mutation. The thing is that the benefit looks like it's much bigger in the ESR1 mutant population, although response was better, PFS wasn't better in the wild type. So, we're still trying to figure that out. We also saw EMBER-3 with imlunestrant and abemaciclib as a second line. Not everybody had had a prior CDK4/6 inhibitor; they compared it to imlunestrant alone, but still the data was quite striking and seemed to cross the need for ESR1 mutations. And then lastly, we saw data from the single arms of the ELEVATE trial looking at elacestrant with everolimus and abemaciclib and showed these really marked progression-free survival data, even though single-arm, that crossed the mutation status. At least for the everolimus combination, abemaciclib analysis is still to come in the mutated subgroups. But really remarkable PFS, much longer.  Single-agent fulvestrant after CDK4/6 inhibitor AI has a PFS in like the three-month range and in some studies, maybe close to five months. These are all at 10-plus months and really looking very good. And so those questions are, is it ESR1 mutation alone? Is it all comers? We'd like all comers, right? We believe in the combination approach and we're learning more about combinations with drugs like capivasertib and other drugs as we move forward. Everybody now wants to combine their targeted agent with an oral SERD because they're clearly here to stay with quite remarkable data. The other issue, so the second issue in the metastatic setting is, does it make a difference if we change to an oral SERD before radiographic imaging evidence of progression? And that was the question asked in the SERENA-6 trial where patients had serial monitoring for the presence of ESR1 mutations in ctDNA. And those who had them without progression on imaging could be randomized to switch to camizestrant with the same CDK4/6 inhibitor or stay on their same AI CDK4/6 inhibitor. And they showed a difference in progression-free survival that markedly favored camizestrant. But interestingly, the people who were on the standard control arm had an ESR1 mutation, we think AIs don't work, they stayed on for nine more months. The patients who were on the camizestrant stayed on for more than 16 months. And they presented some additional subset data which showed the same thing: follow-up PFS data, PFS2, all beneficial in SERENA-6 at the San Antonio [Breast Cancer Symposium]. So, we're still a little bit unclear about that. They did quality of life, and pain was markedly improved. They had a marked delayed time to progression of pain in the camizestrant arm. So this is all a work in progress, trying to understand who should we switch without progression to an oral SERD based on this development of this mutation that correlates with resistance. And, you know, it's interesting because the median time to having a mutation was 18 months and the median time to switch was almost 24 months. And then there were like more than 3,000 patients who hadn't gotten a mutation, hadn't switched, and were still okay. So screening everybody is the big question, and when you would start and who you would change on and how this affects outcome. Patients didn't have access to camizestrant in the control arm, something we can't fix but we have experimental drugs. We're actually planning a trial, I hope in collaboration with the French group Unicancer, and looking at this exact question. You know, if you switch and you change the CDK4/6 inhibitor and then you also allow crossover, what will we see? Dr. Monty Pal: We're coming right to the tail end of our time here, and I could probably go on for another couple of hours with you here. But if you could just give us maybe one or two big highlights from San Antonio, any thoughts to leave our audience with here based on this recent meeting? Dr. Hope Rugo: Yeah, I mean, I talked about a lot of those new data already from San Antonio, and the one that I'd really like to mention which I think was, you know, there were a lot of great presentations including personalized screening presented from the WISDOM trial by my colleague Laura Esserman, fascinating and really a big advance. But lidERA was the big highlight, I think, outside of the HER2CLIMB-05 which I talked about earlier in HER2-positive disease. And this study looked at giredestrant, the oral SERD versus standard of care endocrine therapy as treatment for medium and high-risk early-stage breast cancer. And what they showed, which I think was really remarkable with just about a three-year median follow-up, was an improvement in invasive disease-free survival with a hazard ratio of 0.7. I mean, really quite remarkable and so early. It looked as though this was all driven by the high-risk group, which makes sense, not the medium risk, it's too early. And also that there was a bigger benefit in patients who were on tamoxifen compared to giredestrant versus AI, but for both groups, the confidence intervals didn't cross 1. There's even a trend towards overall survival, even though it's way too early. I think that, you know, really well-tolerated oral drug that could improve outcome in early-stage disease, this is the first advance we've seen in over two decades in the treatment of early-stage hormone receptor-positive disease with just endocrine therapy. I think we think that we don't want to give up CDK4/6 inhibitors because we saw a survival benefit with abemaciclib and a trend with giving ribociclib in the NATALEE trial. So we're thinking that maybe one approach would be to give CDK4/6 inhibitors and then switch to an oral SERD or to have enough data to be able to give oral SERDs with these CDK4/6 inhibitors for early-stage disease. And that's all in the works, you know, lots of studies going on. We're going to see a lot of data with both switching 8,000 patients with an imlunestrant switching trial, an elacestrant trial going on, and safety data with giredestrant with abemaciclib and soon to come ribociclib. So, this is going to change everything for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer, and I hope cure more patients of the most common subset of the most common cancer diagnosed in women worldwide. Dr. Monty Pal: Super exciting. It's just remarkable to hear how this has evolved since 25 years ago, which is really the last time I sort of dabbled in breast cancer.  Thank you so much, Hope, for joining us today. These were fantastic insights. Appreciate you being on the ASCO Daily News Podcast and really want to thank you personally for your remarkable contribution to the field of breast cancer. Dr. Hope Rugo: Thank you very much, and thanks for talking with me today. Dr. Monty Pal: You got it. And thanks a lot to our listeners today as well. You'll find links to all the studies we discussed today in the transcript of this episode. Finally, if you value the insights that you hear today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinion of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:   Dr. Monty Pal @montypal Dr. Hope Rugo   @hoperugo Follow ASCO on social media:        ASCO on X  ASCO on Bluesky       ASCO on Facebook        ASCO on LinkedIn        Disclosures:     Dr. Monty Pal:    Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical   Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis   Dr. Hope Rugo:    Honoraria: Mylan/Viatris, Chugai Pharma   Consulting/Advisory Role: Napo Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Bristol Myer   Research Funding (Inst.): OBI Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead Sciences, Hoffman La-Roche AG/Genentech, In., Stemline Therapeutics, Ambryx  

Seeking Alpha's Head of Quant, Steven Cress, answers your questions! Credo Technology - why the high momentum rating? (0:45) Explaining the Z score (2:30). Merck's momentum better than Pfizer's (3:55). Navigating energy stocks and market sensitivity (6:15). High growth stocks may be held back by valuation concerns (8:40). Why is Comfort Systems a hold? (9:25) Diversification key to minimizing risk; value and growth (11:10). Diving deeper into quant metrics and weightings (13:10).Show Notes:Top 10 Stocks For 2026Get Alpha Picks3 Stocks To Buy From Alpha Picks/Pro Quant PortfolioRead our transcriptsFor full access to analyst ratings, stock and ETF quant scores, and dividend grades, subscribe to Seeking Alpha Premium at seekingalpha.com/subscriptions

In der heutigen Folge sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Lea Oetjen und Holger Zschäpitz über weitere Hiobsbotschaften für Tesla, gewinnende Chip-Aktien und eine verdächtige Wette bei Polymarket. Außerdem geht es um BYD, Salzgitter, Thyssenkrupp, Aurubis, Valero Energy, Phillips 66, Chevron, ExxonMobil, SAP, Salesforce, ServiceNow, Micron Technology, ASML, Lam Research, Arm Holdings, Nvidia, Siemens, AMD, Aeon, Fast Retailing, Seven & i Holdings, Amundi ETF MSCI EM Latin America (WKN: A2H58P), IBM, Cisco Systems, McDonald's, Nike, UnitedHealth Group, Home Depot, Verizon, Merck & Co., Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, Flutter Entertainment und Heineken. Wir freuen uns an Feedback über aaa@welt.de. Noch mehr "Alles auf Aktien" findet Ihr bei WELTplus und Apple Podcasts – inklusive aller Artikel der Hosts und AAA-Newsletter. Hier bei WELT: https://www.welt.de/podcasts/alles-auf-aktien/plus247399208/Boersen-Podcast-AAA-Bonus-Folgen-Jede-Woche-noch-mehr-Antworten-auf-Eure-Boersen-Fragen.html. Der Börsen-Podcast Disclaimer: Die im Podcast besprochenen Aktien und Fonds stellen keine spezifischen Kauf- oder Anlage-Empfehlungen dar. Die Moderatoren und der Verlag haften nicht für etwaige Verluste, die aufgrund der Umsetzung der Gedanken oder Ideen entstehen. Hörtipps: Für alle, die noch mehr wissen wollen: Holger Zschäpitz können Sie jede Woche im Finanz- und Wirtschaftspodcast "Deffner&Zschäpitz" hören. +++ Werbung +++ Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte! https://linktr.ee/alles_auf_aktien Impressum: https://www.welt.de/services/article7893735/Impressum.html Datenschutz: https://www.welt.de/services/article157550705/Datenschutzerklaerung-WELT-DIGITAL.html

Welcome to PsychEd, the psychiatry podcast for medical learners, by medical learners. This short episode covers Types of SubstancesHosts: Sara Abrahamson, Shaoyuan Wang and Kate Braithwaite.Audio Editing: Kate BraithwaiteReferences:American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5, text revision (DSM-5-TR). 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2022.CAMH. (2013). Inhalants. Inhalants | CAMHCAMH. (2010). Cocaine and Crack. https://www.camh.ca/en/health-info/mental-illness-and-addiction-index/cocaineCAMH. (2012). Amphetamines. https://www.camh.ca/en/health-info/mental-illness-and-addiction-index/amphetamines#:~:text=Chronic%20use%20of%20amphetamines%20can,can%20also%20cause%20amphetamine%20psychosis.Chae J, Marsden J and Sutherland A. (2024, August 21). Benzodiazepine Withdrawal. Emergency Care BC. Benzodiazepine Withdrawal : Emergency Care BCChildHealthBC. (2023, September 21). Common Street names for Substances. https://childhealthbc.ca/mhsu/common_streetnames_substances/printfileJauch EC. (2023, January 18) Inhalants Clinical Presentation. Medscape. Inhalants Clinical Presentation: History, Physical, CausesKaye, AD, Staser, AN, Mccollins, TS, Zheng, J, Berry, FA, Burroughs, CR, Heisler, M, Mouhaffel, A, Ahmadzadeh, S, Kaye, AM, Shekoohi, S, & Varrassi, G. (2024). Delirium Tremens: A Review of Clinical Studies. Cureus, 16(4), e57601. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.57601Long N. (2020, November 3). GHB toxicity. Life in the Fast Lane. GHB toxicity • LITFL • Toxicology Library ToxicantMedx. (2025, November 26). Understanding What is the MOA of Alcohol: A Pharmacological Perspective. What is the MOA of Alcohol? Explained: Receptors and EffectsMendelson, J. H., & Mello, N. K. (1996). Management of cocaine abuse and dependence. The New England journal of medicine, 334(15), 965–972. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199604113341507Nichols DE. Hallucinogens. Pharmacol Ther. 2004 Feb;101(2):131-81. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2003.11.002.Nickson C. (2024, December 18). Sedative toxidrome. Life in the Fast Lane. Sedative Toxidrome • LITFL • CCC ToxicologyPorter RS, Kaplan JL, Homeier BP, editors. The Merck manual of diagnosis and therapy. 20th ed. Kenilworth (NJ): Merck Sharp & Dohme; 2018.PsychDB. (2021, March). Opioid Intoxication. Opioid Intoxication - PsychDBPsychDB. (2023, October). Opioid Withdrawal. Opioid Withdrawal - PsychDBPsychDB. (2023 February). Cannabis Withdrawal. Cannabis Withdrawal - PsychDBRoth BL, Gumpper RH. Psychedelics as Transformative Therapeutics. Am J Psychiatry. 2023 May 1;180(5):317-20.Vollenweider FX, Kometer M. The neurobiology of psychedelic drugs: implications for the treatment of mood disorders. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010 Sep;11(9):642-51. doi: 10.1038/nrn2884.

A look at Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), more specifically the two main forms of IBD which are Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease, going through each condition as well as looking at the differences between Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's disease. Includes the signs and symptoms of each, including extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease, as well as differences in the histology. PDFs available at: https://rhesusmedicine.com/pages/gastroenterologyConsider subscribing (if you found any of the info useful!): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRks8wB6vgz0E7buP0L_5RQ?sub_confirmation=1Buy Us A Coffee!: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/rhesusmedicineTimestamps:0:00 What is Inflammatory Bowel Disease?0:15 Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease Epidemiology1:08 Signs and Symptoms of Inflammatory Bowel Disease / Signs and Symptoms of Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease3:19 Extraintestinal Manifestations of Inflammatory Bowel Disease4:48 Inflammatory Bowel Disease Pathology5:07 Risk Factors for Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease / Risk Factors of Inflammatory Bowel Disease5:47 Diagnosis of Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease / Inflammatory Bowel Disease Diagnosis6:51 Inflammatory Bowel Disease Histology / Ulcerative Colitis v Crohn's Disease Histology7:52 Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease / Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease TreatmentLINK TO SOCIAL MEDIA: https://www.instagram.com/rhesusmedicine/ReferencesCrohn's & Colitis Foundation (2019) Updated IBD Factbook. Crohn's & Colitis Foundation. Available at: https://www.Crohn'scolitisfoundation.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/Updated%20IBD%20Factbook.pdfWalfish, A.E. and Ching Companioni, R.A. (2023) ‘Overview of inflammatory bowel disease', MSD Manual Professional Edition. Merck & Co., Inc. Available at: https://www.msdmanuals.com/professional/gastrointestinal-disorders/inflammatory-bowel-disease-ibd/overview-of-inflammatory-bowel-diseaseWaugh, N., Cummins, E., Royle, P. et al. (2013) Comparison of Ulcerative Colitis, Crohn's disease, irritable bowel syndrome and coeliac disease, in Faecal calprotectin testing for differentiating amongst inflammatory and non-inflammatory bowel diseases: systematic review and economic evaluation. Southampton: NIHR Journals Library. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK261307/Disclaimer: Please remember this video and all content from Rhesus Medicine is for educational and entertainment purposes only and is not a guide to diagnose or to treat any form of condition. The content is not to be used to guide clinical practice and is not medical advice. Please consult a healthcare professional for medical advice.

We love to hear from our listeners. Send us a message. On this week's episode of the Business of Biotech, Jennifer Sheller, SVP and Head of Global Clinical Trial Operations at Merck talks about simplifying trial protocols and what she likes about Merck's hybrid functional service provider model for conducting trials in over 60 countries. Jennifer shares her experiences integrating Merck's acquisitions without breaking studies or losing people, using new technology to improve trial operations, and co-designing studies with trial sites for agility and speed.  Access this and hundreds of episodes of the Business of Biotech videocast under the Business of Biotech tab at lifescienceleader.com. Subscribe to our monthly Business of Biotech newsletter. Get in touch with guest and topic suggestions: ben.comer@lifescienceleader.comFind Ben Comer on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bencomer/

What if our smartest health tools still miss the people who need them most? We sit down with AI and digital health scientist Mireille Gomes to examine how innovation can serve dignity, not just efficiency—and what it takes to build technology that works from Geneva to rural clinics without electricity.The journey of Mireille Gomes spans continents and roles, from vaccine strategy at Gavi to AI diagnostics at Merck. Together, we unpack the real barriers to deployment—uneven infrastructure, overworked staff, and data voids that erase entire communities from the record. We look at consent‑first design, why open data must be truly anonymous, and how representation in civil registration and vital statistics underpins every “fair” algorithm. You'll hear pragmatic ideas for triage tools that flag urgency in seconds, health education in local languages, and micro‑local models that adapt to context while sharing standards globally.We also push on the hard questions: Who decides which data matters? Can algorithms be biased toward justice if the world is not? Where is the line between breakthrough and overreach when crises demand speed? Mirielle argues for building abuse cases into development, testing for misuse before launch, and preserving community storytelling—especially Indigenous knowledge—alongside dashboards. The goal is health equity by design, so no one's care depends on their birthplace or bandwidth.If you care about AI in healthcare, data justice, and solutions that actually work on the ground, this conversation offers a clear roadmap and candid guardrails. If it resonates, subscribe, leave a review, and share it with someone shaping the future of digital health.Send us a textCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats. The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

Shop Talk explores nostalgic themes surrounding defunct retail brands. But first, innovative toilet technology from Japan and the first photo booth museum in NYC Caught Our Eye. Kenneth Frazier, former CEO of Merck and the first African American to lead a major American Pharma Co., is the Business Birthday. We're all business. Except when we're not. Apple Podcasts: apple.co/1WwDBrC Spotify: spoti.fi/2pC19B1 iHeart Radio: bit.ly/4aza5LW Tunein: bit.ly/1SE3NMb YouTube Music: bit.ly/43T8Y81 Pandora: pdora.co/2pEfctj YouTube: bit.ly/1spAF5a Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Ken Taunton. Founder and president of The Royster Group, a nationally recognized, certified Black-owned professional staffing firm. Here's a breakdown of the key themes and takeaways:

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Ken Taunton. Founder and president of The Royster Group, a nationally recognized, certified Black-owned professional staffing firm. Here's a breakdown of the key themes and takeaways:

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Ken Taunton. Founder and president of The Royster Group, a nationally recognized, certified Black-owned professional staffing firm. Here's a breakdown of the key themes and takeaways:

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. As we close out the year 2025, it's clear that the pharmaceutical and biotech industries have experienced a period of significant transformation. This year has been marked by groundbreaking drug approvals, strategic partnerships, and a focus on innovative therapies that promise to redefine patient care.One of the standout achievements this year comes from GlaxoSmithKline, which received approval from the U.S. FDA for its ultra-long-acting biologic, Exdensur, aimed at treating severe asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype in adolescents and adults. This approval underscores the growing trend toward personalized medicine and biologics, offering new hope for patients with chronic respiratory conditions by providing more sustainable and personalized treatment options.In the oncology sector, Merck's Keytruda and Astellas Pharma's Padcev have demonstrated significant overall survival benefits when used as perioperative treatments for cisplatin-eligible muscle-invasive bladder cancer. This combination therapy of a PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor and an antibody-drug conjugate highlights the evolving landscape of cancer treatment, emphasizing the role of immunotherapy and targeted therapies in improving patient outcomes in challenging cancer subtypes.However, not all developments have been positive. Hansa Biopharma faced challenges with its kidney transplant drug, imlifidase. Despite success in kidney transplant trials, it failed to achieve desired results in treating anti-glomerular basement membrane disease. This serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in drug repurposing efforts within autoimmune diseases.Alnylam Pharmaceuticals announced a significant investment to enhance its Norton, Massachusetts facility into a dedicated site for small interfering RNA (siRNA) production. This move reflects the industry's shift towards RNA-based therapies that offer targeted gene-silencing capabilities and positions Alnylam at the forefront of RNAi therapeutics production.In another promising development, ImmunityBio reported positive data from its QUILT-3.032 study on Anktiva for BCG-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer with high-grade papillary disease. The potential expansion of Anktiva's use reinforces the importance of personalized immunotherapies in oncology.The launch of Ambros Therapeutics with $125 million in Series A funding highlights efforts to develop non-opioid pain medications already approved abroad. This initiative addresses chronic pain management without relying on opioids, potentially advancing analgesic therapies amidst the ongoing opioid crisis.In China, Fosun Pharma's acquisition of a majority stake in Green Valley Pharmaceuticals aims to revive a controversial seaweed-derived Alzheimer's medication. Despite skepticism over its efficacy, this investment signals continued innovation efforts amid growing demand for effective Alzheimer's treatments.Siemens Healthineers' partnership with Alzpath to incorporate pTau-217 antibodies into its Atellica immunoassay platforms marks a significant step forward in Alzheimer's diagnostics. This collaboration aims to enhance biomarker detection capabilities crucial for early diagnosis and intervention strategies in neurodegenerative diseases.On the strategic front, Bristol Myers Squibb entered into a substantial research agreement with Harbour BioMed valued at up to $1.1 billion. This deal underscores Big Pharma's ongoing pursuit of alliances to advance therapeutic pipelines and antibody technologies.Finally, Cencora's acquisition of OneOncology for $5 billion underscores consolidation trends within specialty practice networks. By valuing OneOncology at $7.4 billion, this acquisition reflects the growing importance of integrated oncology care models and collaborative netSupport the show

In Episode 33, Dr. Aly-Khan Lalani and Dr. Christoper Wallis sit down with Dr. Daniel Heng, Clinical Professor at the University of Calgary and Head of Medical Oncology at the Arthur J.E. Child Comprehensive Cancer Centre. Together, they explore the full landscape of mentorship and sponsorship in academic medicine, from what makes an exceptional mentee to how leaders identify and support rising talent.The View on GU with Lalani & Wallis integrates key clinical data from major conferences and high impact publications, sharing meaningful take home messages for practising clinicians in the field of genitourinary (GU) cancers. Learn more about The View on GU: theviewongu.caThis podcast has been made possible through unrestricted financial support by Novartis, Bayer, Astellas, Tolmar, Ipsen, J&J, Merck, Pfizer, Eisai and AbbVie.

This episode is part of the special series Empowered Intimacy: Getting Your Sexy Back After Breast Cancer, where getting your sexy back is about reclaiming confidence, connection, and desire after a breast cancer diagnosis. Melissa Berry sits down with Chelsey Pickthorn, a patient advocate living with stage four triple-negative breast cancer, and Dr. Don Dizon, Chief of Hematology and Oncology at Tufts Medicine and a national leader in sexual health and inclusive cancer care.  They explore the challenges LGBTQ+ individuals face with intimacy, dating, body image, and relationships after a cancer diagnosis. Chelsey shares her experiences navigating disclosure, reconstruction, caregiving, and connection, while Dr. Dizon highlights gaps in healthcare for LGBTQ+ patients.  This honest and hopeful conversation offers guidance, empowerment, and advocacy for inclusive care. Thank you to Lilly, Merck, and Novartis for making this episode possible.  

The Big Unlock · Gregory Goldmacher, M.D., Associate Vice President in Clinical Research, and Head of Clinical Imaging & Pathology, Merck Research Laboratories In this episode, Dr. Greg Goldmacher, Associate VP of Clinical Research at Merck, known as MSD outside of the United States and Canada, explains how AI is transforming imaging, clinical trials, and early-stage drug development. Greg describes endpoints as the core of every clinical trial, since they determine whether a therapy is safe or effective. He notes that AI is not new to imaging and aligns well with pattern recognition, yet its real value lies in identifying details that humans often miss. Greg stresses that drug development still depends on huge volumes of data spread across legacy systems. Without strong data standardization, AI cannot deliver reliable results. He also points to the FDA's evolving guidance on AI and emphasizes the need for rigorous validation before using AI-derived measurements for regulatory decisions. Greg highlights the opportunity to improve efficiency, reduce human burden, and generate more consistent insights. With thoughtful adoption, AI can support better decisions in clinical development and improve outcomes for patients. Take a listen.

JCO PO author Dr. Shilpa Gupta at Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital shares insights into her article, "Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 3 (FGFR3) Alteration Status and Outcomes on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICPI) in Patients with Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma". Host Dr. Rafeh Naqash and Dr. Gupta discuss how FGFR3 combined with TMB emerged as a biomarker that may be predictive for response to ICPI in mUC. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Hello and welcome to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations, where we bring you engaging conversations with authors of clinically relevant and highly significant JCO PO articles. I'm your host, Dr. Rafeh Naqash, podcast editor for JCO Precision Oncology and Associate Professor at the OU Health Stephenson Cancer Center. Today I am excited to be joined by Dr. Shilpa Gupta, Director of Genitourinary Medical Oncology at the Cancer Institute and co-leader of the GU Oncology Program at the Cleveland Clinic, and also lead author of the JCO PO article titled "Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 3 Alteration Status and Outcomes on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma." At the time of this recording, our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript. Shilpa, welcome again to the podcast. Thank you for joining us today. Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Thank you, Rafeh. Honor to be here with you again. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: It is nice to connect with you again after two years, approximately. I think we were in our infancy of our JCO PO podcast when we had you first time, and it has been an interesting journey since then. Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Absolutely. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, excited to talk to you about this article that you published. Wanted to first understand what is the genomic landscape of urothelial cancer in general, and why should we be interested in FGFR3 alterations specifically? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Bladder cancer or urothelial cancer is a very heterogeneous cancer. And while we find there is a lot of mutations can be there, you know, like BRCA1, 2, in HER2, in FGFR, we never really understood what is driving the cancer. Like a lot of old studies with targeted therapies did not really work. For example, we think VEGF can be upregulated, but VEGF inhibitors have not really shown definite promise so far. Now, FGFR3 receptor is the only therapeutic target so far that has an FDA approved therapy for treating metastatic urothelial cancer patients, and erdafitinib was approved in 2019 for patients whose tumors overexpressed FGFR3 mutations, alterations, or fusions. And in the landscape of bladder cancer, it is important because in patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, about 70 to 80% patients can have this FGFR3. But as patients become metastatic, the alterations are seen in, you know, only about 10% of patients. So the clinical trials that got the erdafitinib approved actually used archival tumor from local cancer. So when in the real world, we don't see a lot of patients if we are trying to do metastatic lesion biopsies. And why it is important to know this is because that is the only targeted therapy available for our patients right now. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for giving us that overview. Now, on the clinical side, there is obviously some interesting data for FGFR3 on the mutation side and the fusion side. In your clinical practice, do you tend to approach these patients differently when you have a mutation versus when you have a fusion? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: We can use the treatment regardless of that. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: I recently remember I had a patient with lung cancer, squamous lung cancer, who also had a synchronous bladder mass. And the first thought from multiple colleagues was that this is metastatic lung. And interestingly, the liquid biopsy ended up showing an FGFR3-TACC fusion, which we generally don't see in squamous lung cancers. And then eventually, I was able to convince our GU colleagues, urologists, to get a biopsy. They did a transurethral resection of this tumor, ended up being primary urothelial and synchronous lung, which again, going back to the FGFR3 story, I saw in your paper there is a mention of FGFR3-TACC fusions. Anything interesting that you find with these fusions as far as biology or tumor behavior is concerned? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: We found in our paper of all the patients that were sequenced that 20% had the pathognomonic FGFR3 alteration, and the most common were the S249C, and the FGFR3-TACC3 fusion was in 45 patients. And basically I will say that we didn't want to generate too much as to fusion or the differences in that. The key aspect of this paper was that historically there were these anecdotal reports saying that patients who have FGFR alterations or mutations, they may not respond well to checkpoint inhibitors because they have the luminal subtype. And these were backed by some preclinical data and small anecdotal reports. But since then, we have seen that, and that's why a lot of people would say that if somebody's tumor has FGFR3, don't give them immunotherapy, give them erdafitinib first, right? So then we had this Phase 3 trial called the THOR trial, which actually showed that giving erdafitinib before pembrolizumab was not better. That debunked that myth, and we are actually reiterating that because in our work we found that patients who had FGFR3 alterations or fusions, and if they also have TMB-high, they actually respond very well to single agent immunotherapy. And that is, I think, very important because it tells us that we are not really seeing that so-called potential of resistance to immunotherapy in these patients. So to answer your question, yeah, we did see those differences, but I wouldn't say that any one marker is more prominent. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: The analogy is kind of similar to what we see in lung cancer with these mutations called STK11/KEAP1, which are also present in some other tumors. And one of the questions that I don't think has been answered is when you have in lung cancer, if you extrapolate this, where doublet or single agent immunotherapy doesn't do as well in tumors that are STK11 mutated. But then if you have a high TMB, question is does that TMB supersede or trump the actual mutation? Could that be one reason why you see the TMB-high but FGFR3 altered tumors in your dataset responding or having better outcomes to immunotherapy where potentially there is just more neoantigens and that results in a more durable or perhaps better response to checkpoint therapy? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: It could be. But you know, the patients who have FGFR alterations are not that many, right? So we have already seen that just patients with TMB-high respond very well to immunotherapy. Our last podcast was actually on that, regardless of PD-L1 that was a better predictor of response to immunotherapy. So I think it's not clear if this is adding more chances of response or not, because either way they would respond. But what we didn't see, which was good, that if they had FGFR3, it's not really downplaying the fact that they have TMB-high and that patients are not responding to immunotherapy. So we saw that regardless, and that was very reassuring. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: So if tomorrow in your clinic you had an individual with an FGFR3 alteration but TMB-high, I guess one could be comfortable just going ahead with immunotherapy, which is what the THOR trial as you mentioned. Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Yes, absolutely. And you know, when you look at the toxicity profiles of pembrolizumab and erdafitinib, really patients really struggle with using the FGFR3 inhibitors. And of course, if they have to use it, we have to, and we reserve it for patients. But it's not an easy drug to tolerate. Currently the landscape is such that, you know, frontline therapy has now evolved with an ADC and immunotherapy combinations. So really if patients progress and have FGFR3 alterations, we are using erdafitinib. But let's say if there were a situation where a patient has had chemotherapy, no immunotherapy, and they have FGFR3 upregulation and TMB-high, yes, I would be comfortable with using only pembrolizumab. And that really ties well together what we saw in the THOR trial as well. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Going to the clinical applications, you mentioned a little bit of this in the manuscript, is combination therapies. You alluded to it a second back. Everything tends to get combined with checkpoint therapy these days, as you've seen with the frontline urothelial, pembrolizumab with an ADC. What is the landscape like as far as some of these FGFR alterations are concerned? Is it reasonable to combine some of those drugs with immune checkpoint therapy? And what are some of the toxicity patterns that you've potentially seen in your experience? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: So there was indeed a trial called the NORSE trial. It was a randomized trial but not a comparative cohort, where they looked at FGFR altered patients. And when they combined erdafitinib plus cetrelimab, that did numerically the response rates were much higher than those who got just erdafitinib. So yeah, the combination is definitely doable. There is no overlapping toxicities. But unfortunately that combination has not really moved forward to a Phase 3 trial because it's so challenging to enroll patients with such kind of rare mutations on large trials, especially to do registration trials. And since then the frontline therapy has evolved to enfortumab vedotin and pembrolizumab. I know there is an early phase trial looking at a next generation FGFR inhibitor. There is a triplet combination looking in Phase 1 setting with a next generation FGFR inhibitor with EV-pembro. However, it's not a randomized trial. So you know, I worry about such kinds of combinations where we don't have a path for registration. And in the four patients that have been treated, four or five patients in the early phase as a part of basket trial, the toxicities were a lot, you know, when you combine the EV-pembro and an FGFR3 inhibitor, we see more and more toxicity. So the big question is do we really need the "kitchen sink" approach when we have a very good doublet, or unless the bar is so high with the doublet, like what are we trying to add at the expense of patient toxicity and quality of life is the big question in my mind. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Going back to your manuscript specifically, there could be a composite biomarker. You point out like FGFR in addition to FGFR TMB ends up being predictive prognostic there. So that could potentially be used as an approach to stratify patients as far as treatment, whether it's a single agent versus combination. Maybe the TMB-low/FGFR3 mutated require a combination, but the TMB-high/FGFR mutated don't require a combination, right? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: No, that's a great point, yeah. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: But again, very interesting, intriguing concepts that you've alluded to and described in this manuscript. Now, a quick take on how things have changed in the bladder cancer space in the last two years. We did a podcast with you regarding some biomarkers as you mentioned two years back. So I really would like to spend the next minute to two to understand how have things changed in the bladder cancer space? What are some of the exciting things that were not there two years back that are in practice now? And how do you anticipate the next two years to be like? Maybe we'll have another podcast with you in another two years when the space will have changed even more. Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Certainly a lot has happened in the two years, you know. EV-pembro became the universal frontline standard, right? We have really moved away from cisplatin eligibility in metastatic setting because anybody would benefit from EV-pembro regardless of whether they are candidates for cisplatin or not, which historically was relevant. And just two days ago, we saw that EV-pembro has now been approved for localized bladder cancer for patients who are cisplatin ineligible or refusing. So, you know, this very effective regimen moving into earlier setting, we now have to really think of good treatment options in the metastatic setting, right? So I think that's where a lot of these novel combinations may come up. And what else we've seen is in a tumor agnostic trial called the DESTINY-PanTumor trial, patients who had HER2 3+ on immunohistochemistry, we saw the drug approval for T-DXd, and I think that has kind of reinvigorated the interest in HER2 in bladder cancer, because in the past targeting HER2 really didn't work. And we still don't know if HER2 is a driver or not. And at ESMO this year, we saw an excellent study coming out of China with DV which is targeting HER2, and toripalimab, which is a Chinese checkpoint inhibitor, showing pretty much similar results to what we saw with EV-pembro. Now, you know, not to do cross-trial comparisons, but that was really an amazing, amazing study. It was in the presidential session. And I think the big question is: does that really tell us that HER2-low patients will not benefit? Because that included 1+, 2+, 3+. So that part we really don't know, and I think we want to study from the EV-302 how the HER2 positive patients did with EV and pembro. So that's an additional option, at least in China, and hopefully if it gets approved here, there is a trial going on with DV and pembro. And lastly, we've seen a very promising biomarker, like ctDNA, for the first time in bladder cancer in the adjuvant setting guiding treatment with adjuvant atezolizumab. So patients who were ctDNA positive derived overall survival and recurrence-free survival benefit. So that could help us select moving forward with more studies. We can spare unnecessary checkpoint inhibitors in patients who are not going to benefit. So I think there is a lot happening in our field, and this will help do more studies because we already have the next generation FGFR inhibitors which don't have the toxicities that erdafitinib comes with. And combining those with these novel ADCs and checkpoint inhibitors, you know, using maybe TMB as a biomarker, because we really need to move away from PD-L1 in bladder cancer. It's shown no utility whatsoever, but TMB has. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, thank you so much, Shilpa, for that tour de force of how things have changed in bladder cancer. There used to be a time when lung and melanoma used to lead this space in terms of the number of approvals, the biomarker development. It looks like bladder cancer is shifting the trend at this stage. So definitely exciting to see all the new changes that are coming up. I'd like to spend another minute and a half on your career. You've obviously been a leader and example for many people in the GU space and beyond. Could you, for the sake of our early career especially, the trainees and other listeners, describe how you focused on things that you're currently leading as a leader, and how you shaped your career trajectory over the last 10 years? Dr. Shilpa Gupta: That's a really important question, Rafeh, and you and I have had these discussions before, you know, being an IMG on visas like you, and being in different places. I think I try to make the most of it, you know, instead of focusing on the setbacks or the negative things. Like tried to grab the opportunities that came along. When I was at Moffitt, got to get involved with the Phase 1 trial of pembrolizumab in different tumor types. And just keeping my options open, you know, getting into the bladder cancer at that time when I wanted to really do only prostate, but it was a good idea for me to keep my options open and got all these opportunities that I made use of. I think an important thing is to, like you said, you know, have a focus. So I am trying to focus more on biomarkers that, you know, we know that 70% patients will respond to EV-pembro, right? But what about the remaining 30%? Like, so I'm really trying to understand what determines hyperprogressors with such effective regimens who we really struggle with in the clinic. They really don't do well with anything we give them after that. So we are doing some work with that and also trying to focus on PROs and kind of patient-reported outcomes. And a special interest that I've now developed and working on it is young-onset bladder cancer. You know, the colorectal cancer world has made a lot of progress and we are really far behind. And bladder cancer has historically been a disease of the elderly, which is not the case anymore. We are seeing patients in their 30s and 40s. So we launched this young-onset bladder cancer initiative at a Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network meeting and now looking at more deep dive and creating a working group around that. But yeah, you know, I would say that my philosophy has been to just take the best out of the situation I'm in, no matter where I am. And it has just helped shape my career where I am, despite everything. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Well, thank you again. It is always a pleasure to learn from your experiences and things that you have helped lead. Appreciate all your insights, and thank you for publishing with JCO PO. Hopefully we will see more of your biomarker work being published and perhaps bring you for another podcast in a couple of years. Dr. Shilpa Gupta: Yeah, thank you, Rafeh, for the opportunity. And thanks to JCO PO for making these podcasts for our readers. So thanks a lot. Dr. Rafeh Naqash: Thank you for listening to JCO Precision Oncology Conversations. Don't forget to give us a rating or review and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all ASCO shows at asco.org/podcast. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. DISCLOSURES Dr. Shilpa Gupta Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Company: BioNTech SE,  Nektar Consulting or Advisory Role: Company: Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, Merck, Foundation Medicine, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Medarex, Natera, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen Research Funding: Recipient: Your Institution Company: Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Merck, Roche/Genentech, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Novartis, Tyra Biosciences, Pfizer, Convergent Therapeutics, Acrivon Therapeutics, Flare Therapeutics, Amgen Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Company: Pfizer, Astellas Pharma, Merck    

Send us an inquiry through a text message here!Welcome to a special episode of The Veterinary Roundtable! We're excited to welcome Dr. Nikhil Joshi, Senior Professional Services Veterinarian at Merck Animal Health! With extensive veterinary experience, he's here to dive into everything you need to know about Bravecto Quantum.Do you have a question, story, or inquiry for The Veterinary Roundtable? Send us a text from the link above, ask us on any social media platform, or email theveterinaryroundtable@gmail.com!Episodes of The Veterinary Roundtable are on all podcast services along with video form on YouTube!Timestamps00:00 Intro05:41 Bravecto Quantum Basics08:06 Species of Ticks Bravecto Quantum Covers08:43 Ideal Fit For This Product09:54 Talking To An Owner About Coverage11:43 What Makes the Lone Star Tick So Hard To Remove13:43 What Happens If There Are Gaps in the Shots14:33 How Does It Dissolve To Last a Year17:07 Dealing with Social Media Backlash19:38 Dogs That Aren't Ideal Candidates For It22:28 Precautions and Side Effects to Consider25:03 Cost Concerns26:38 What Should Clients Ask Their Vets27:29 The Tick Life Cycle30:18 Human Tickborne Disease32:05 Does the Injection Break the Life Cycle Better35:50 Injection Concerns37:48 Bravecto Promise39:46 Best Storing and Usage Practices40:39 What Drives Owners to Make the Switch43:05 Usage on Pets with Seizure Disorders44:07 Final Thoughts45:07 Outro

Marco e Merck provano a decifrare la strana partita contro i Colt di un redivivo Philip Rivers

AABP Executive Director Dr. Fred Gingrich is joined by Dr. Angel Abuelo, AABP member on faculty at Michigan State University College of Veterinary Medicine. Abuelo presented at the 2025 AABP Recent Graduate Conference in Norman, Okla. on managing Salmonella Dublin. AABP members can listen to this presentation for free by accessing the online CE portal on this page or download the BCI Mobile Conference app from your device's store.  Salmonella Dublin is a host-adapted pathogen that results in high morbidity and mortality due to the systemic nature of the disease in calves and in most cases, the pathogen exhibits multi-drug resistance. This pathogen also has implications for human health as a zoonotic disease. Abuelo discusses the clinical presentation in calves is primarily respiratory disease and the carrier state that can be seen in adult cows that serve as a continuous reservoir to maintain the disease on a farm. Diagnostics should include multiple tissues from deceased calves that are necropsied. The best sample to submit in live calves is not feces, but aseptically collected blood cultures.  Abuelo discusses the nuances of treatment in affected calves and due to multi-drug resistance, response to therapy can be poor or lead to a carrier state in recovered animals. Although enrofloxacin is labeled for treatment of bovine respiratory disease, it is not specifically labeled for treatment of Salmonella Dublin and extralabel use of fluoroquinolones in food animals is prohibited by the FDA.  Prevention of the disease is multifactorial and includes all aspects of proper neonatal calf management including adequate and timely pasteurized colostrum, maternity pen management, ventilation, sanitation and nutrition. Abuelo also discusses the use of vaccines in cows and calves to manage the disease on endemically infected farms to prevent outbreaks. Continued research on managing this disease, including the use of vaccines and improved diagnostics, will be important topics for veterinarians and producers who are managing this pathogen. REFERENCES: Frye E, Jennings C, Kremer K. Aseptic technique for blood culture collection in the field to diagnose Salmonella Dublin in calves. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2025;263(7):1. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.25.02.0116. PMID: 40267971. https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/javma/263/7/javma.25.02.0116.xml Castro-Vargas RE, Cullens-Nobis FM, Mani R, Roberts JN, Abuelo A. Effect of dry period immunization of Salmonella Dublin latent carriers with a commercial live culture vaccine on intrauterine transmission based on the presence of precolostral antibodies in offspring. J Dairy Sci. 2024;107(12):11436-11445. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-24945The effect of Salmonella vaccination on Salmonella Dublin blood enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay results. Bov Pract. 2025;59(2), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.21423/bpj20259266 Abuelo A, Renaud D.  Salmonella Dublin Infection in Cattle. Merck Veterinary Manual. 2024. Winter A, Abuelo A, Allen DG, et al. (Eds). Merck, Rahway, NJ, USA. https://www.merckvetmanual.com/digestive-system/salmonellosis/salmonella-dublin-infection-in-cattle Salmonella Dublin Risk Management HERD SD app: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/herd-sd/id6748356498   

Nell'episodio 592 Giuliana ci parla di neutrini sterili e di un nuovo esperimento che confuta la loro esistenzaGiuliano intervista Alfonso Lucifredi che ci parla del suo libro Troppi, che ha vinto il premio GalileoValeria invece racconta di un nuovo farmaco per l'influenza che è attualmente in fase di trial clinici e del motivo per cui Merck ha recentemente acquistato l'azienda produttrice per 9.2 miliardi di dollari. Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/scientificast-la-scienza-come-non-l-hai-mai-sentita--1762253/support.

On this episode Gil sits with Michael Rosenblatt, MD, one of the most accomplished physician-scientists in modern medicine. He is former Chief Medical Officer of Merck, where he led global scientific strategy and medical affairs. Previously he served as Dean of Tufts University School of Medicine, Chief Scientific Officer at Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, where he advanced groundbreaking research in endocrinology, metabolic bone disease, and translational science. We discuss the intersection of academia, biotechnology, pharmaceutical innovation, and the clinical science shaping modern drug development and the future of precision therapeutics.

This special episode of RealTalk MS is sponsored by EMD Serono and is only intended for a U.S. audience. EMD Serono is the healthcare business of Merck, KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, in the United States and Canada. Please note this episode is only intended for a U.S. audience. In this special episode of RealTalk MS, Professor Elisabeth Celius and Amanda Montague join me to explore new consensus recommendations for the future of MS care from MS in the 21st Century. We'll hear what experts and people in the MS community think are the priorities to focus on to improve care and help lessen the burden of living with MS.   Professor Elisabeth Celius is a consultant neurologist with a special focus on MS at Oslo University Hospital in Norway, where she is the group leader of the MS Research Group and also conducts epidemiological, genetic, and clinical research.  Amanda Montague is a global thought leader and Interim President & CEO of the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America. Both Amanda and Elisabeth are active members of the MS in the 21st Century initiative, more commonly known as MS21. MS21 is a Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, initiative involving healthcare professionals, people with MS, and patient advocacy groups.  To learn more about MS in the 21st Century, please visit www.msinthe21stcentury.com.

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we dive into a series of transformative events shaping the future of drug development, patient care, and global healthcare strategies.**Johnson & Johnson's Multiple Myeloma Advances** Johnson & Johnson has made significant strides in the treatment of multiple myeloma with their bispecific antibody, Tecvayli. In recent trials, Tecvayli has shown remarkable promise when used in combination therapies as a second-line treatment. This development is noteworthy as it could potentially challenge the dominance of CAR-T cell therapies like J&J's Carvykti by offering a more accessible and less complex alternative. For patients, this means potentially fewer logistical hurdles and a more straightforward therapeutic option, which could drastically improve patient care standards.**Regulatory Scrutiny on RSV Vaccines** Turning to regulatory news, the U.S. FDA has intensified its scrutiny of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines developed by pharmaceutical giants such as Merck, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi for infants. This increased oversight follows reports linking some COVID-19 vaccines to adverse effects in children. The FDA's actions highlight the ongoing necessity for vigilant safety monitoring in vaccine development, especially for vulnerable populations like infants. This is a crucial step in ensuring that vaccines designed for our youngest population are both safe and effective.**Eli Lilly's Strategic Moves in Oncology and Beyond** Eli Lilly is making waves in oncology with its BTK inhibitor, Jaypirca. Despite strong phase 3 results that support its use as a first-line treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), Lilly is focusing on its application as a second-line therapy. This strategic choice reflects an astute understanding of market dynamics and therapeutic niches where Jaypirca can provide substantial benefits despite competition from established first-line treatments. Additionally, Eli Lilly continues to leverage its financial success from its weight loss drug Tirzepatide to position itself as a central player in global pharmaceutical innovation. The company's strategic investments are likely to catalyze advancements across various therapeutic areas, reinforcing its role as a key contributor to medical breakthroughs.**Legislative Impact on Biopharma** In legislative news, the Biosecure Act's incorporation into the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act marks a strategic shift towards tightening regulations on Chinese biopharma entities regarding federal contracts by 2026. This move could have profound implications for international collaborations and competition within biotechnology innovation and drug development sectors. It signals a broader trend of increased scrutiny on foreign entities in sensitive industries like biopharmaceuticals.**China's Healthcare Transformation** China's healthcare landscape is undergoing significant transformation with the inclusion of drugs from companies like Pfizer, Lilly, and J&J into its first private insurance formulary. This development could enhance access to innovative medications within China, potentially improving health outcomes and influencing global pricing strategies in the pharmaceutical industry.**Gamida Cell's Milestone in Cell Therapies** In a major milestone for cell therapies, Gamida Cell has secured a second FDA approval for its stem cell therapy Omisirge. Initially approved to reduce infection risk during hematopoietic stem cell transplantations in blood cancer patients, Omisirge's expanded indication to treat severe aplastic anemia underscores the potential of cell therapies in addressing diverse hematologic conditions.**CSL Seqirus' New Facility in Australia** In Australia, CSL Seqirus has opened a $1 billion facility dedicated to producing cell-baSupport the show

In this episode of the HR Mixtape, host Shari Simpson sits down with Celeste Warren, Vice President of the Global Diversity and Inclusion Center of Excellence at Merck. They delve into the critical topic of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in the workplace, emphasizing that inclusion is a shared responsibility across all levels of an organization. This conversation is particularly timely as companies navigate the complexities of employee experience and strive for inclusive leadership in a rapidly changing environment. Listener Takeaways: Learn how to foster a culture of inclusion by engaging all employees in DEI initiatives. Discover why aligning employee resource groups with business goals can drive organizational change. Explore strategies for measuring the impact of DEI efforts beyond traditional metrics. Hit “Play” to gain valuable insights on integrating DEI into your organization's fabric! Guest(s): Celeste Warren, Vice President, Global Diversity and Inclusion Center of Excellence, Merck

Andreas Munk Holm opens the episode by introducing Charles Dunn, Principal at SV Health Investors, and Ruth McKernan, CBE and Operating Partner at SV Health, former CEO of Innovate UK. SV Health is a transatlantic healthcare specialist with a focus on company creation and full-spectrum biotech investing. Notable wins include the exit of SV-created EyeBio to Merck & Co for up to $3bn including $1.3bn upfront, and the recent launch of SV's newest company creation Driag Therapeutics, a UK-based neuropsychiatry company, which recently announced its $140m Series A financing.SV Health's approach blends early-stage company creation with later-stage venture investment. Charles emphasizes that this structure allows:Diversified risk for LPs: Early-stage opportunities carry higher risk but higher upside; later-stage investments provide more stability.Learning across stages: Experience in late-stage investing informs early-stage decision-making, and vice versa.Flexible company formation: SV Health creates companies across different development stages, sometimes even after Phase 1 data exists, as with Draig Therapeutics.

What if managing your herd felt more like managing an app than wrestling with wire and posts? In this episode we'll break down how virtual fencing is reshaping grazing for livestock producers across the country. We'll explain how a simple collar and phone app let producers draw fences over any terrain, protect sensitive areas, and move herds without setting foot in the pasture. Joined by Nofence National Sales Director, Eric Yates, we dig into the rising cost and rigidity of traditional fencing, the wildlife benefits of removing physical fence, and real examples of ranchers grazing steep, rocky, flood prone country they never could have used before. He also shares how Nofence helps producers plan grazing seasons months and years ahead, monitor animals in real time, and why he believes “virtual fence trained” cattle could be the next premium in the market. About Eric Yates: Eric Yates helps ranchers unlock new opportunities with virtual fencing technology as the US National Sales Director for Nofence. He joined Nofence in June 2025 and has been at the forefront of virtual fencing since 2023. A proud 2010 graduate of Texas A&M, Eric has spent his entire career in the cattle industry including more than a decade in animal health sales with Merial and Merck, to now leading the charge in transforming grazing management for herds across the US. This episode is sponsored by Nofence. Nofence empowers livestock producers to graze without compromise while respecting tradition and embracing innovation. Built by farmers for farmers, Nofence's reliable virtual fencing system delivers peace of mind, supports sustainable livestock management, and unlocks new possibilities for the future of your operation.

Dr. Pedro Barata and Dr. Ravin Garg discuss strategies to increase trial representation, including leveraging trial navigators and prioritizing pragmatic trial models, as featured in the ASCO Educational Book article, "Practical Guide to Clinical Trial Accessibility: Making Trial Participation a Standard of Care." TRANSCRIPT Dr. Pedro Barata: Hello, and welcome to By the Book, a podcast from ASCO featuring compelling perspectives from authors and editors of the ASCO Educational Book. I'm Dr. Pedro Barata. I am a medical oncologist at University Hospital Seidman Cancer Center and an associate professor of medicine at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. I am also the associate editor of the ASCO Educational Book. We know that in recent years, the oncology community has increasingly prioritized the need to modernize clinical trial eligibility, reduce patient burden, and enhance diversity in trial participation. On that note, today we will be speaking about ways to enhance access to clinical trials with Dr. Ravin Garg. He is a hematologist oncologist at Maryland Oncology Hematology and also an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. Dr. Garg is also the co-author of a fantastic paper in the ASCO Educational Book titled, "Practical Guide to Clinical Trial Accessibility: Making Trial Participation a Standard of Care."  Dr. Garg, welcome. Thanks for being here, and congrats on your paper. Dr. Ravin Garg: Thank you for having me, Pedro. I am excited to be here. Dr. Pedro Barata: [KI1]  Your paper is a wonderful, multidisciplinary piece that actually features perspectives from the different stakeholders, right? The patient advocacy, industry, community practice, and academia about these challenges in making trials more available. This podcast is a wonderful platform. It reaches out to a lot of folks within our community. So, I will start by asking you the obvious. Why do you think it is a must read for our community, for our listeners? Dr. Ravin Garg: So Pedro, thanks again for inviting me. You do a great job with these podcasts.  So, I think first and foremost, oncologists right now are under a lot of stress, just in terms of clinical volume. There is concern for research money, and how we get the best care for our patients. So I think this article is very important because it helps bring together, as you had mentioned, the stakeholders throughout academic to community practice and everywhere in between, and try to find how, as a team with different oncologists who partake in different aspects of oncology, can come together to streamline the process to try to get our patients on trials, or certainly have them have availability of trials, just if they are interested in going on them. Being in practice, we have had several challenges that we can talk about throughout this podcast, but I think it is a very important paper because it recognizes that at the end of the day, it takes a team effort for all of us in academics, community, industry, and pharmaceuticals to really come together as a team to really help put forth the trials for our patients. Dr. Pedro Barata: So, from the perspective of a community oncologist, how do you put together, or maybe you can describe some of the challenges that you see to increase trial participation in the community? Dr. Ravin Garg: Yes, Pedro, that is a great question, and it is something that I keep on thinking about and trying to find ways to be better at it myself. But I will say some of the challenges as a community doctor that I have seen for myself and talking to other colleagues. Number one, I do think there is a lot of stress on doctors in the community in general, Pedro. Oftentimes we are tasked to see a wide smorgasbord of patients, so we may not have the luxury of being a specialist in any particular tumor subtype. Like oftentimes, we will have to see lung cancer, the next one will be breast cancer, the next one could be CML, the next one could be thrombocytopenia. And as you know better than I do, Pedro, the field in each one of these disciplines is changing so rapidly: molecular genomics, radioligand treatments, different imaging tests, MRD testing for some of our hematologic malignancies. And I think one challenge we have in community is just keeping up with the basics of Oncology 101. In the process of doing that, it can be very difficult to sometimes remember that we have very exciting trials available for our patients. So, I think a lot of it is the day in and day out of being an oncologist is so taxing at times that oftentimes a research trial is not the first thing in our head space when we see a patient. I think number two, Pedro, at least in the community, and perhaps this is with academics too, is that we are bombarded, I would say, by a lot of messaging these days. We have in-baskets to go through, labs to go through, things of that nature. And in the process of a patient visit, seeing them, doing an exam, taking a history, trying to go over the NCCN guidelines on best practice for how to manage their care, at least for me at times, it is very hard to remember, "Hey, there might be a great trial available, whether within our network or maybe partnering with an academic center." So getting through a day can be fraught with a lot of peril and just difficulties, I would say. And I would say number three, Pedro, at least as, you know, I am in a private practice where I do see a wide range of benign and malignant hematology and solid tumors, so I would not call myself a specialist. And I think the challenge with that, at least for trials, Pedro, is that when you are a specialist or perhaps you are focusing on a couple of disease subtypes, you become more of an authoritative voice in those types of tumors, and you might be more aware of the trials within your network or perhaps in proxy with an academic center that you can offer your patient. So I think when sometimes we spread ourselves too thin, it can be very hard to be a thought leader, if you will, in a particular subtype of a malignancy, let's say, and maybe not be aware of a trial that could be really well-suited for your patient. In terms of ideas that myself and colleagues have had in terms of helping mitigate against some of these, I would say, setbacks or issues in the practice for trial enrollment, some of the things we have talked about, Pedro, is, number one, is we do partner with academic centers. So we live here in Maryland. We have several really fantastic academic centers. So, you know, oftentimes, not just within our practice of Maryland Oncology Hematology, we have a lot of great trials available here too, for certain, but in addition to that, we will often times work with doctors at Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, and Maryland if they have a compelling trial that we do not have within our network. It is really of the patient's interest, Pedro, to reach out to them in a collaborative manner to see if they have a trial that might be really compelling for your patient. So I do find myself collaborating a lot with colleagues in, like talented like yourself in academics. You know, I think you do a lot of GU malignancies. So as an example, like partnering with colleagues who are GU experts and say, "Hey, we have a patient with stage IV renal cell. These are the standard options I know, but are there any trials that you might have available?" I think the other thing that has been very helpful for us is having navigators within research, Pedro. Like as an example, what has really helped the uptake of trial enrollment for our center in Annapolis is having a research navigator because often times what they can do is, a priori, Pedro, before you see the patient and you are kind of formulating a standard of care treatment plan perhaps, they might tug you on the shirt and say, "Hey, we have a great trial here through Sarah Cannon, or there might be something else out there." And being aware of that when you go into a patient's room really provides a nice arena, if you will, to go and say, "The standard of care is here, but hey, we have a trial option that might be well suited for you, maybe perhaps even better, that we can talk about, too." So having research support in the community is really a huge boon, I think, Pedro, for us to really increase our enrollment for patients onto trials. Dr. Pedro Barata: Yes, I really love that, Ravin. So, let me switch gears a bit. I would love for you to talk a little bit about patient advocacy because they do play a huge role in cancer, and they address many barriers. How do you think we should leverage the patient advocacy groups to reduce patient burden and maybe have them really leverage patient advocacies to improve representation in clinical trials? What do we think we can do more? Dr. Ravin Garg: Oh, Pedro, I think they are very critically important. As a clinical oncologist now, and I would say this is for anyone in the field of medicine, you are exactly right. I think patients are bombarded by information. There are a lot of things online, whether it be TikTok, Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and people really just have a lot of information given to them. And some of it is fact driven, and some of it is not, Pedro. And oftentimes, I do think there can be at times a mistrust with some medical personnel. I think we are in an era where we are seeing that to some degree with some attributes of medicine. And I think of it as an opportunity for education for the patient and for myself as a physician. And I think patient advocates, to your point, which was well taken, serve as a bridge to both. And what I mean is that, you know, patient advocates are wonderful. They are, I think, outstanding communicators. They almost are a neutral party, Pedro, where many patients feel that they are an independent source of information that is free of bias, if you will. They are there to provide support, emotional support, scientific support for patients so they can make an informed decision. So, in terms of our practice right now, patient advocates is something that we are evolving in that capacity, I would say, Pedro. I think now more than ever, having more people as bridges of communication with care providers along with patients is of critical importance. And I would venture a guess, and I think this has been published, where patient advocates really can help tremendously in familiarizing patients with trials and what they are all about and maybe clear up some misconceptions of what trials, what the mission of trials are. Because I do think some patients, at least I have had a few over the years, where when they hear the term trial, they almost think they are being experimented upon, when, in point of fact, they could really help advance their care. That messaging along the way for some can may be mixed up a little bit. And so I think patient advocates is a really great way to offer more information for patients with a source they find very independent and trustworthy, if you will. And it can really help expedite, and I think make a more fruitful conversation for care providers, whether academic or community, and they might be more open-minded in terms of enrolling onto a trial. Dr. Pedro Barata: Wonderful. Yes, I agree. I agree with you completely.  So let's focus a little bit now on the folks designing the studies. We usually call them the sponsors. It might be an academic sponsorship, if you will, but we can also have pharma being the sponsor of a study. The angle from an academic design, it is not necessarily the same as what happens when we have pharma. And from that angle, how do you think a more inclusive research can be promoted? Dr. Ravin Garg: Oftentimes with trials, I think keeping them simple, as simple as we can. And what I mean by that is, often times for trials, Pedro, even for care providers who are enrolling, it can be daunting when there are a lot of different things involved, particularly, let's say, for investigator sponsored, which are incredibly brilliant science, incredible, but it can be a little bit daunting for patients and even the referring physician to talk about getting translational specimens, imaging, traveling to certain centers to get scans and biopsies and even different diagnostic testing like PSMA testing for, you know, prostate cancer. And it can, I think, be very intimidating for patients in terms of what might be required of him or her to enter onto a trial. Like, "This is not what I signed up for. This is laborious. This is a full time job for me. Do I have to pay for parking to go to a city? Do I have to pay for these imaging tests? And do I have to stay in a place for my family to enroll onto a trial?" So I think keeping trials as simple as possible, but yet cull the data we need as investigators where we can really advance the care, hopefully get approval for a drug, but also learn more about the medication and how it works for our patients. So I think simplifying language for trial is very important. I know when I have gone over studies for patients, Pedro, if it is a voluminous amount of information, they can right away get very intimidated. "Like, oh my goodness, this is like a term paper for college again," you know? I am joking, but you know, keeping language simplified is very important, I think, number one. And I feel that sometimes when they are asked to do a lot of different diagnostic testing, which is very important for translational work, I 100% understand, but I do think sometimes patients can get a little bit off put, if you will, and frustrated with the whole process of doing it. The second thing for our patients, Pedro, that they have mentioned to us when we put them on trials, not just within our own site but elsewhere, is that it takes a lot of time in terms of collecting information, perhaps a washout period from their last standard of treatment prior to enrollment onto a study. Many patients, Pedro, as you know better than I do, are in maybe crisis in terms of their health and their cancer might be growing, promulgating out of control, and they worry about not being able to expeditiously start onto a treatment, onto a trial. So that can lead to a lot of frustration. And one thing that you brought up, which was outstanding for me, is the enrollment criterion for some of our patients is felt to be somewhat strict. We have had some patients who may have had a remote history of a stage I malignancy that was by all accounts in remission, you know, let's say 4 or 5 years in the past, and the risk of recurrence at this point would be incredibly low, but they may not be able to enter onto a study because of some stringent criterion put forth. And that can be a little bit frustrating. In fact, I have had one or two patients who, as an example, with kidney issues, but the GFR was about 60, like right near a cutoff that oftentimes, as you know, we use where you can get into trial or not. And you know, if they are at 58, as an example, and otherwise they are a picture of health, a great candidate for a trial that will likely advance their care, and if the entry criterion is too stringent, that might be a lost opportunity for all parties involved, all stakeholders, if you will. I do appreciate the criterion for entry onto studies cannot be too liberalized. You have to have a certain baseline, but there is a little bit of a gray area and tension, of sorts, if you will, where the patient has a comorbid illness that is a disqualifying offense, but in practicality, perhaps it shouldn't be, especially if they are motivated and there is an opportunity to really advance their care. We have run into, not often, but sometimes in the past, I should say, where patients have been very off put because we try to get them onto a study and there may have been a particular feature or attribute in their underlying care that they couldn't get onto it. So I think having a little bit more thoughtfulness, perhaps, in terms of entry criterion and practicality, if you will, I think would really help enrollment onto studies. Dr. Pedro Barata: Really well said. Is there anything else that you would like to tell our listeners before we wrap up the podcast today? Dr. Ravin Garg: I would say just macroscopically speaking, it is really an honor to be an oncologist. I think I speak for both of us. Anyone listening who is thinking about the field, it is tremendous. Just the research, the bravery of our patients, and the thoughtfulness of our scientists like Pedro and translationalists and clinical trialists is really awe inspiring. So I have really loved this field. I will say from a trial perspective, we really need to enter as many patients as we can onto trials because the science is so brilliant now, the genomic underpinnings of the tumor, we are making great strides as a team of clinicians and scientists, translationalists. So the more that we can get people onto trials and get approved drugs, it is going to help them out in the end. So I think it is such an important time for all of us to come together as a community, find the best way to help our patients out. And clinical trials have to be at the forefront of how we can continue to advance care for our patients. Dr. Pedro Barata: Yeah, no Ravin, I really agree with you. We really need to increase access to clinical studies, and actually your paper is a great step in that direction by raising awareness, bringing up solutions, and again, collaboration, collaboration, collaboration is really a multidisciplinary effort to accomplish that.  Thank you so much for sharing your fantastic thoughts and insights with us. Dr. Ravin Garg: Thank you, Pedro. I am- you do a wonderful job with these podcasts. I am really honored to meet you and to be part of this. Dr. Pedro Barata: And thank you to our listeners for your time today. I encourage you to check out Dr. Garg's article in the 2025 ASCO Educational Book. We will post a link to the paper in our show notes. And please join us again next month on By the Book for more insights on key advances and innovations that are shaping modern oncology. Thank you for your attention. Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Follow today's speakers:          Dr. Pedro Barata   @PBarataMD    Dr. Ravin Garg Follow ASCO on social media:          @ASCO on X      ASCO on Bluesky     ASCO on Facebook       ASCO on LinkedIn       Disclosures:       Dr. Pedro Barata:   Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Luminate Medical   Honoraria: UroToday   Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, BMS, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Eisai, Caris Life Sciences, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, AVEO, Merck, Ipson, Astellas Medivation, Novartis, Dendreon   Speakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Merck, Caris Life Sciences, Bayer, Pfizer/Astellas   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Blue Earth, AVEO, Pfizer, Merck    Dr. Ravin Garg: Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Creator, editor, and writer of hemeoncquestions.com  

Good morning from Pharma Daily: the podcast that brings you the most important developments in the pharmaceutical and biotech world. Today, we dive into a series of pivotal events shaping the landscape of drug development and patient care. The interplay between scientific advancements, regulatory shifts, and strategic partnerships is setting the stage for significant transformations within the industry.A highlight of recent developments is the legal challenge faced by Merck & Co. regarding its new subcutaneous version of Keytruda. This immunotherapy, already a breakthrough in cancer treatment, has encountered a hurdle in Germany where Halozyme, known for its drug-delivery technologies, has secured a preliminary injunction. This move by a German court halts Merck's activities related to Keytruda SC in Germany and underscores the intricate web of intellectual property rights in drug launches across international markets. The outcome of this case could establish crucial precedents for future commercialization efforts involving advanced drug delivery technologies.Meanwhile, there's promising news from Bristol Myers Squibb as their CAR-T therapy, Breyanzi, receives its fifth FDA approval, this time for marginal zone lymphoma. This approval is particularly noteworthy as it marks Breyanzi as the first CAR-T treatment sanctioned for this specific indication and extends its use across five different types of blood cancers. CAR-T therapies continue to represent a frontier in cancer treatment by leveraging the body's immune system to combat malignancies more effectively. This success story from Bristol Myers Squibb highlights the expanding potential of CAR-T therapies in tackling various hematological cancers, offering renewed hope for patients with limited treatment avenues.On the regulatory front, the FDA's proposal to consider single-trial approvals for certain drugs has sparked considerable debate. While some industry voices express concerns about potential compromises to safety and efficacy standards, others see it as an opportunity to invigorate research and development investments by reducing both time and costs associated with bringing new therapies to market. This shift could indeed accelerate innovation but will necessitate a careful balance to uphold rigorous safety standards.In parallel regulatory news, Daiichi Sankyo has received an "untitled letter" from the FDA over its patient ambassador video for Turalio, indicating ongoing challenges in navigating drug promotion guidelines and patient engagement strategies. Such interactions emphasize the complexities pharmaceutical companies face within regulatory frameworks.Shifting focus to corporate strategies, Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs is exploring a partnership with Humana aimed at addressing prescription drug costs for employers. This collaboration seeks to reduce healthcare expenses through innovative pricing models and distribution channels, reflecting a broader industry trend toward cost containment and value-based care delivery.In another development affecting public health policy, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has postponed its vote on changes to newborn hepatitis B vaccine policies due to ongoing debates and confusion surrounding the topic. This delay highlights the intricate nature of updating long-standing public health policies, especially those impacting vaccination schedules.From an investment perspective, Freenome's decision to go public through a $330 million SPAC deal stands out. Specializing in developing blood tests for early cancer detection using machine learning technologies, Freenome's move aims to secure capital necessary for advancing its diagnostic tools—potentially transforming cancer screening practices by enabling earlier detection and intervention.In clinical trial news, Praxis Precision Medicines reported positive efficacy results from a Phase 2 trialSupport the show

Big tech is stumbling while pharma stocks surge, what does that mean for markets heading into 2026? In this episode, Anthony and Piers unpack why Nvidia, Microsoft, and Amazon are dragging, while Eli Lilly and Merck lead a surprising rotation. They also explore shifting Fed rate cut expectations, conflicting US labor data, and what it all signals for the S&P 500's next move.We also break down Deutsche Bank's “triple whammy” dollar call, Trump's Fed chair pick, and why a yen carry trade unwind could shake crypto markets. Plus, UK PMI surprises and pound strength, are brighter days ahead for the UK economy? Tune in for easy-to-follow macro insights this week!(00:00) Topics & Listener Shoutouts(02:51) Big Tech Wobble, Pharma Surge(09:16) Fed Cut Expectations & Labour Data(18:27) Trump's Fed Pick & Market Reaction(24:23) Deutsche Bank US Dollar Call(30:07) Yen Carry Trade & Crypto Risk(36:01) UK Budget Bounce & PMI Surprise*****Last chance to join our in-person Finance Bootcamp in London 15-19 December 2025. As part of our podcast community, you can use the code BOOT500 at checkout for a £500 discount.

Dr. Monty Pal and Dr. Jason Westin discuss the federal funding climate for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages, two of the major concerns facing the oncology community in 2026. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Monty Pal: Hello and welcome to the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I am your host, Dr. Monty Pal. I am a medical oncologist and vice chair of academic affairs at the City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Los Angeles. There are always multiple challenges facing oncologists, and today, we discuss two of them that really stand out for 2026: threats to federal funding for cancer research and the persistent problem of drug shortages. I am thrilled to welcome Dr. Jason Westin, who believes that one way to meet these challenges is to get oncologists more involved in advocacy, and he will share some strategies to help us meet this moment in oncology. Dr. Westin is a professor in the Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, but he actually wears a lot of hats within ASCO. He is a member of the Board of Directors and has also previously served as chair of ASCO's Government Relations Committee. And he is also one of the inaugural members of ASCO's Political Action Committee, or PAC. He has testified before Congress about drug shortages and many other issues. Dr. Westin, I am really excited to have you on the podcast today and dive into some of these elements that will really impact our community in 2026. Thanks so much for joining us today. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you for having me. Dr. Monty Pal: You've had such a range of experience. I already alluded to you testifying before Congress. You've actually run for office before. You wear so many different hats. I'm used to checking my PubMed every other day and seeing a new paper out from you and your group, and you publish in the New England Journal [of Medicine] on practice-setting standards and the diseases that you treat. But you've also done all this work in the domain of advocacy. I can't imagine that balancing that is easy. What has sort of motivated you on the advocacy front? Dr. Jason Westin: Advocacy to me is another way to apply our skills and help more people than just those that you're sitting across from at the time. Clinical research, of course, is a tool to try and take what we know and apply it more broadly to people that you'll never meet. And advocacy, I think, can do the same thing, where you can have a conversation with a lawmaker, you can advocate for a position, and that hopefully will help thousands or maybe even more people down the road who you'd never get to directly interact with. And so, I think it's a force multiplier in the same way that research can be. And so, I think advocacy is a wonderful part of how doctors care for our patients. And it's something that is often difficult to know where to start, but once people get into advocacy, they can see that the power, the rewarding nature of it is attractive, and most people, once they get going, continue with that through the rest of their career. Dr. Monty Pal: So, I'll ask you to expand on that a little bit. We have a lot of our younger ASCO members listening to this podcast, folks that are just starting out their careers in clinical practice or academia. Where does that journey begin? How do you get to the point that you're testifying in front of Congress and taking on these bigger sort of stances for the oncology community? Dr. Jason Westin: Yeah, with anything in medicine and in our careers, you have to start somewhere. And often you start with baby steps before you get in front of a panel of senators or other high-profile engagement opportunities. But often the first setting for junior colleagues to be engaged is doing things – we call them "Hill Days" – but basically being involved in kind of low-stakes meetings where you're with a group of peers, some of whom have done this multiple times before, and can get engaged talking to members of representatives' offices, and doing so in a way where it's a natural conversation that you're telling a story about a patient in your clinic, or that you're telling a personal experience from a policy that impacted your ability to deliver optimal care. It sounds stressful, but once you're doing it, it's not stressful. It's actually kind of fun. And it's a way that you can get comfort and skill with a group of peers who are there and able to help you. And ASCO has a number of ways to do that, both at the federal level, there's the Hill Day where we each April have several hundred ASCO members travel to Capitol Hill. There's also state engagement that can be done, so-called visiting at home, when representatives from the U.S. Congress or from state legislators are back in district. You can meet with your own representatives on behalf of yourself, on behalf of your organization, and advocate for policies in a way that can be beneficial to your patients. But those initial meetings that are in the office often they're low stakes because you could be meeting not with the representative but with their staff. And that staff sometimes is as young or even younger than our junior colleagues. These sometimes can be people in their 20s, but they're often extremely knowledgeable, extremely approachable, and are used to dealing with people who are new to advocacy. But they actually help make decisions within the office. So it's not a waste of time. It's actually a super useful way to engage. So, it's that first step of anything in life. The activation energy is always high to do something new. But I'd encourage people who are listening to this podcast already having some level of interest about it to explore ways that they could engage more. Dr. Monty Pal: You know, I have to tell you, I'm going to riff on what you just said for a second. ASCO couldn't make it any easier, I think, for folks to participate and get involved. So, if you're listening to this and scratching your head and thinking, "Well, where do I begin? How do I actually sign on for that meeting with a local representative?" Go to the ASCO ACT Network website. And I'll actually talk to our producer, Geraldine, to make sure we've got a link to that somewhere associated with this podcast after it's published, Jason, but I actually keep that on my browser and it's super easy. I check in there every now and then and see if there's any new policy or legislation that ASCO, you know, is sort of taking a stance on, and it gives me some fodder for conversation with my local representatives too. I mean, it's just an awesome, awesome vehicle. I'm going to segue right from there right to the issues. So, you and I are both at academic centers. You know, I think this is something that really pervades academia and enters into implications for general clinical practice. There's been this, you know, massive sort of proposal for decreased funding to the NCI and to the NIH and so forth. Tell us what ASCO is doing in that regard, and tell us perhaps how our community can help. Dr. Jason Westin: We live in interesting times, and I think that may be an understatement x 100. But obviously investments in research are things that when you're at an academic center, you see and feel that as part of your daily life. Members of Congress need to be reminded of that because there's a lot of other competing interests out there besides investing in the future through research. And being an elected representative is a hard job. That is something where you have to make difficult choices to support this, and that may mean not supporting that. And there's lots of good things where our tax dollars could be spent. And so, I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's not unlimited resources. However, ASCO has done an excellent job, and ASCO members have led the charge on this, of stating what research does, what is the benefit of research, and therefore why should this matter to elected representatives, to their staff, and to those people that they're elected to serve. And ASCO has led with a targeted campaign to basically have that message be conveyed at every opportunity to elected representatives. And each year on Hill Day, one of the asks that we have is to continue to support research: the NCI, NIH, ARPA-H, these are things that are always in the asks to make sure that there's appropriate funding. But effectively playing offense by saying, "It's not just a number on a sheet of paper, this is what it means to patients. This is what it means to potentially your loved ones in the future if you are in the opposite situation where you're not on the legislative side, but you're in the office receiving a diagnosis or receiving a difficult piece of news." We only have the tools we have now because of research, and each breakthrough has been years in the making and countless hours spent funded through the engine of innovation: clinical research and translational research. And so ASCO continues to beat that drum. You mentioned earlier the ACT Network. Just to bring that back again is a very useful, very easy tool to communicate to your elected representatives. When you sign up on the ASCO ACT website, you get emails periodically, not too much, but periodically get emails of, "This is a way you can engage with your lawmakers to speak up for this." And as you said, Monty, they make it as easy as possible. You click the button, you type in your address so that it figures out who your elected representatives are, and then it will send a letter on your behalf after like five clicks to say, "I want you to support research. I want you to vote for this particular thing which is of interest to ASCO and by definition to members of ASCO." And so the ACT Network is a way that people listening can engage without having to spend hours and significant time, but just a few clicks can send that letter to a representative in Congress. And the question could be: does that matter? Does contacting your senator or your elected representative do anything? If all they're hearing is somebody else making a different argument and they're hearing over and over again from people that want investments in AI or investments in something else besides cancer research, whatever it is, they may think that there's a ground shift that people want dollars to be spent over here as opposed to at the NIH or NCI or in federally funded research. It is important to continue to express the need for federal funding for our research. And so, it really is important for folks to engage. Dr. Monty Pal: 100%. One of the things that I think is not often obvious to a lot of our listeners is where the support for clinical trials comes from. You know, you've obviously run the whole gamut of studies as have I. You know, we have our pharmaceutical company-sponsored studies, which are in a particular bucket. But I would say that there's a very important and critical subset of studies that are actually government funded, right? NCI-funded clinical trials. If you don't mind, just explain to our audience the critical nature of the work that's being done in those types of studies and if you can, maybe compare and contrast the studies that are done in that bucket versus perhaps the pharmaceutical bucket. Dr. Jason Westin: Both are critical, and we're privileged that we have pharma studies that are sponsored and federally funded clinical research. And I think that part of a healthy ecosystem for us to develop new breakthroughs has a need for both. The pharma sponsored studies are done through the lens of trying to get an approval for an agent that's of interest so that the pharma company can then turn around and use that outside of a clinical trial after an FDA approval. And so those studies are often done through the lens of getting over the finish line by showing some superiority over an existing treatment or in a new patient population. But they're done through that lens of kind of the broadest population and sometimes relatively narrow endpoints, but to get the approval so that then the drug can be widely utilized. Clinical trials done through cooperative groups are sometimes done to try and optimize that or to try and look at comparative things that may not be as attractive to pharma studies, not necessarily going for that initial approval, but the fine tuning or the looking at health outcomes or looking at ensuring that we do studies in representative populations that may not be as well identified on the pharma sponsored trials, but basically filling out the gaps in the knowledge that we didn't gain from the initial phase 3 trial that led to the approval. And so both are critical. But if we only do pharma sponsored trials, if we don't fund federally supported research and that dries up, the fear I have, and many others have, is that we're going to be lacking a lot of knowledge about the best ways to use these great new therapies, these new immune therapies, or in my team, we do a lot of clinical trials on CAR T-cell therapies. If we don't have federally funded research to do the important clinical studies, we'll be in the dark about the best ways to use these drugs, and that's going to be a terrible shame. And so we really do need to continue to support federal research. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, there are no softball questions on this podcast, but I think everybody would be hard pressed to think that you and I would come on here and say, "Well, no, we don't need as much money for clinical trials and NCI funding" and so forth. But I think a really challenging issue to tackle, and this is something we thought to ask you ahead of the podcast, is what to do about the general climate of, you know, whether it's academic research or clinical practice here that seems to be getting some of our colleagues thinking about moving elsewhere. I've actually talked to a couple of folks who are picking up and moving to Europe for a variety of considerations, other continents, frankly. The U.S. has always been a leader when it comes to oncology research and, one might argue, research in general. Some have the mindset these days that we're losing that footing a little bit. What's your perspective? Are you concerned about some of the trends that you're seeing? What does your crystal ball tell you? Dr. Jason Westin: I am highly concerned about this. I think as you said, the U.S. has been a leader for a long time, but it wasn't always. This is not something that's preordained that the world-leading clinical research and translational research will always be done in the United States. That is something that has been developed as an ecosystem, as an engine for innovation and for job development, new technology development, since World War II. That's something that through intentional investments in research was developed that the best and brightest around the world, if they could choose to go anywhere, you wanted them to come to work at universities and academic places within the United States. And I think, as you said, that's at risk if you begin to dry up the investment in research or if you begin to have less focus on being engaged in research in a way that is forward thinking, not just kind of maintaining what we do now or only looking at having private, for profit sponsored research. But if you don't have the investment in the basic science research and the translational research and the forward-thinking part of it, the fear is that we lose the advantage and that other countries will say, "Thank you very much," and be happy to invest in ways to their advantage. And I think as you mentioned, there are people that are beginning to look elsewhere. I don't think that it's likely that a significant population of researchers in the U.S. who are established and have careers and families – I don't think that we're going to see a mass exodus of folks. I think the real risk to me is that the younger, up-and-coming people in undergraduate or in graduate school or in medical school and are the future superstars, that they could either choose to go into a different field, so they decide not to go into what could be the latest breakthroughs for cancer patients but could be doing something in AI or something in a different field that could be attractive to them because of less uncertainty about funding streams, or they could take that job offer if it's in a different country. And I think that's the concern is it may not be a 2026 problem, but it could be a 2036 or a 2046 problem that we reap what we sow if we don't invest in the future. Dr. Monty Pal: Indeed, indeed. You know, I've had the pleasure of reviewing abstracts for some of our big international meetings, as I'm sure you've done in the past too. I see this trend where, as before, we would see the preponderance of large phase 3 clinical trials and practice setting studies being done here in the U.S., I'm seeing this emergence of China, of other countries outside of the U.S. really taking lead on these things. And it certainly concerns me. If I had to sort of gauge this particular issue, it's at the top of my list in terms of what I'm concerned about. But I also wanted to ask you, Jason, in terms of the issues that are looming over oncology from an advocacy perspective, what else really sort of keeps you up at night? Dr. Jason Westin: I'm quite concerned about the drug shortages. I think that's something that is a surprisingly evergreen problem. This is something that is on its face illogical that we're talking about the greatest engine for research in the world being the United States and the investment that we've made in drug development and the breakthroughs that have happened for patients all around the world, many of them happen in the United States, and yet we don't necessarily have access to drugs from the 1970s or 1980s that are cheap, generic, sterile, injectable drugs. This is the cisplatins and the vincristines and the fludarabine type medications which are not the sexy ones that you see the ads in the magazine or on TV at night. These are the backbone drugs for many of our curative intent regimens for pediatrics and for heme malignancies and many solid tumors. And the fact that that's continuing to be an issue is, in my opinion, a failure to address the root causes, and those are going to require legislative solutions. The root causes here are basically a race to the bottom where the economics to invest in quality manufacturing really haven't been prioritized. And so it's a race to the cheapest price, which often means you undercut your competitor, and when you don't have the money to invest in good manufacturing processes, the factory breaks down, there's no alternative, you go into shortage. And this has been going on for a couple of decades, and I don't think there's an end in sight until we get a serious solution proposed by our elected officials. That is something that bothers me in the ways where we know what we should be doing for our patients, but if we don't have the drugs, we're left to be creative in ways we shouldn't have to do to figure out a plan B when we've got curative intent therapies. And I think that's a real shame.  There's obviously a lot of other things that are concerning related to oncology, but something that I have personally had experience with when I wanted to give a patient a CAR T-cell, and we don't have a supply of fludarabine, which is a trivial drug from decades ago in terms of the technology investments in genetically modified T-cells, to not then have access to a drug that should be pennies on the dollar and available at any time you want it is almost like the Air Force investing in building the latest stealth bomber, but then forgetting to get the jet fuel in a way that they can't use it because they don't have the tools that they need. And so I think that's something that we do need to have comprehensive solutions from our elected officials. Dr. Monty Pal: Brilliantly stated. I like that analogy a lot. Let's get into the weeds for a second. What would that proposal to Congress look like? What are we trying to put in front of them to help alleviate the drug shortages? Dr. Jason Westin: We could spend a couple hours, and I know podcasts usually are not set up to do that. And so I won't go through every part. I will direct you that there have been a couple of recent publications from ASCO specifically detailing solutions, and there was a recent white paper from the Senate Finance Committee that went through some legislative solutions being explored. So Dr. Gralow, ASCO CMO, and I recently had a publication in JCO OP detailing some solutions, more in that white paper from the Senate Finance. And then there's a working group actually going through ASCO's Health Policy Committee putting together a more detailed proposal that will be published probably around the end of 2026. Very briefly, what needs to happen is for government contracts for purchasing these drugs, there needs to be an outlay for quality, meaning that if you have a manufacturing facility that is able to deliver product on time, reliably, you get a bonus in terms of your contract. And that changes the model to prioritize the quality component of manufacturing. Without that, there's no reason to invest in maintaining your machine or upgrading the technology you have in your manufacturing plant. And so you have bottlenecks emerge because these drugs are cheap, and there's not a profit margin. So you get one factory that makes this key drug, and if that factory hasn't had an upgrade in their machines in 20 years, and that machine conks out and it takes 6 months to repair or replacement, that is an opportunity for that drug to go into shortage and causes a mad dash for big hospitals to purchase the drug that's available, leaving disparities to get amplified. It's a nightmare when those things happen, and they happen all the time. There are usually dozens, if not hundreds, of drugs in shortage at any given time. And this has been going on for decades. This is something that we do need large, system-wide fixes and that investment in quality, I think, will be a key part. Dr. Monty Pal: Yeah, brilliantly said. And I'll make sure that we actually include those articles on the tagline for this podcast as well. I'll talk to our producer about that as well.  I'm really glad you mentioned the time in your last comment there because I felt like we just started, but in fact, I think we're right at our close here, Jason, unfortunately. So, I could have gone on for a couple more hours with you. I really want to thank you for these absolutely terrific insights and thank you for all your advocacy on behalf of ASCO and oncologists at large. Dr. Jason Westin: Thank you so much for having me. I have enjoyed it. Dr. Monty Pal: Thanks a lot. And many thanks to our listeners too. You can find more information about ASCO's advocacy agenda and activities at asco.org. Finally, if you value the insights that you heard today on the ASCO Daily News Podcast, please rate, review, and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Thanks so much. ASCO Advocacy Resources: Get involved in ASCO's Advocacy efforts: ASCO Advocacy Toolkit Crisis of Cancer Drug Shortages: Understanding the Causes and Proposing Sustainable Solutions, JCO Oncology Practice Disclaimer: The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. Find out more about today's speakers:     Dr. Monty Pal   @montypal   Dr. Jason Westin @DrJasonWestin   Follow ASCO on social media:      @ASCO on X     ASCO on Bluesky    ASCO on Facebook      ASCO on LinkedIn      Disclosures:     Dr. Monty Pal:    Speakers' Bureau: MJH Life Sciences, IntrisiQ, Peerview   Research Funding (Inst.): Exelixis, Merck, Osel, Genentech, Crispr Therapeutics, Adicet Bio, ArsenalBio, Xencor, Miyarsian Pharmaceutical   Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Crispr Therapeutics, Ipsen, Exelixis   Dr. Jason Westin: Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Janssen Scientific Affairs, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene/Juno, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Abbvie, MorphoSys/Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Abbvie, Chugai Pharma, Regeneron, Nurix, Genmab, Allogene Therapeutics, Lyell Immunopharma Research Funding: Janssen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, MorphoSys/Incyte, Genentech/Roche, Allogene Therapeutics

Episodio 1236 en colaboración con MerckDentro de la campaña "Impulsando el crecimiento, inspirando confianza" de Merck en este episodio hablamos sobre el déficit de hormona de crecimiento, una enfermedad que genera un gran impacto en la vida de los niños que conviven con ella y la de sus familias.Para conocer mejor en qué consiste, el funcionamiento de la hormona del crecimiento, la importancia de su detección temprana y de su tratamiento, hablamos con la Dra. Rosenova, endocrina pediátrica del IMED Valencia.Estudio referenciado:Backeljauw P, Cappa M, Kiess W, Law L, Cookson C, Sert C, Whalen J, Dattani MT. Impact of short stature on quality of life: A systematic literature review. Growth Horm IGF Res. 2021 Apr-Jun;57-58:101392. doi: 10.1016/j.ghir.2021.101392. Epub 2021 Apr 30. PMID: 33975197.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33975197/ Web: https://madresfera.com/Newsletter: https://www.madresfera.com/newsletter/ Música: #mobygratis https://mobygratis.com/Conviértete en un seguidor de este podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/buenos-dias-madresfera--2023835/support.

In this episode, I am pleased to welcome Chrissie Pariseau, DVM, MS, DABVP (Equine Practice), cVMA with Merck Animal Health to share some perspectives on the current EHV-1 outbreak.Join us as Dr. Pariseau unpacks the myths and facts about EHV-1 and EHM, including her professional recommendations for monitoring symptoms, testing for the virus, protecting healthy horses in your herd, and caring for those that have been exposed or infected.

Secretary Juan Pablo Segura joins BioTalk for a conversation about Virginia's growing position in the biohealth economy and the statewide strategy behind it. He outlines the significance of the new partnership with AstraZeneca, Lilly, and Merck, including up to $120 million in private investment to create a workforce development center and expand the Commonwealth's life sciences capacity. Segura talks through how Virginia approaches company recruitment, what investors are responding to, and why the state is seeing increased interest from biomanufacturing and advanced R&D companies. He also discusses Virginia's use of public-private partnerships to accelerate industry growth, strengthen the talent pipeline, and support emerging hubs across the Commonwealth. The conversation closes with a look at Virginia's role in the BioHealth Capital Region and how the regional identity helps amplify the state's message as it continues building a competitive biohealth ecosystem.   Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com). Juan Pablo Segura is the Secretary of Commerce and Trade for the Commonwealth of Virginia. He leads 13 agencies focused on economic growth, business development, and industry expansion across the state. Before entering public service, Segura spent his career building companies in the digital health sector, most notably as a founder of Babyscripts, a widely adopted maternity care platform. His work has been recognized by Startup Health, CTIA, EY, and the White House. He is a CPA and a graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and he lives in Henrico, Virginia with his family.

How This Is Building Me, hosted by world-renowned oncologist D. Ross Camidge, MD, PhD, is a podcast focused on the highs and lows, ups and downs of all those involved with cancer, cancer medicine, and cancer science across the full spectrum of life's experiences. In this episode, Dr Camidge sat down with Gideon Blumenthal, MD, vice president of Clinical Development Oncology at Merck in Silver Spring, Maryland. Drs Camidge and Blumenthal discussed Dr Blumenthal's experience serving on both sides of the oncology regulatory divide. Though initially leaning toward humanities during his education, he pursued a career in medicine. During medical school, he shifted his focus from neuroscience to oncology due to the field's high unmet need, fascinating drug development pathways, and the intensity of patient interaction. He chose to complete his hematology and oncology fellowship at the National Cancer Institute to immerse himself in translational oncology and drug development. Before joining industry, Dr Blumenthal also spent several years working for the FDA. He started there as a medical officer, focusing on all facets of drug development, from ethics and manufacturing to trial design and biostatistics. He emphasized that success at the FDA involves both approving effective agents and identifying drugs that do not work, maintaining transparency through venues like the public Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee meetings. He used FDA data to conduct independent meta-research, such as analyzing the correlation between response rates and overall survival in lung cancer. His proudest achievement at the FDA was helping to establish the Oncology Center of Excellence, which unified drug development reviews across different centers within the agency. Dr Blumenthal left the FDA in early 2020, seeking to gain direct experience in developing new therapeutics. Joining Merck, he first worked in regulatory affairs, navigating international regulations in addition to US filing procedures, which are typically prioritized in oncology. He later transitioned into clinical development, and currently focuses on new assets as Merck evolves its pipeline beyond pembrolizumab (Keytruda). Dr Blumenthal concluded that he is excited by the future of oncology, anticipating radical changes driven by new modalities and advanced biomarkers like artificial intelligence–driven digital pathology.

Have you ever noticed how much stronger teams become when people feel encouraged, valued, and supported?In this episode of The Executive Appeal, Alex D. Tremble, CEO of GPS Leadership Solutions, sits down with Celeste Warren, former VP and Chief Diversity & Inclusion Officer at Merck and founder of Celeste Warren Consulting LLC, to explore how authentic leadership, encouragement, and inclusive practices shape team success and workplace culture.

Plus: Cidara Therapeutics stock doubles after a bid from Merck. And Under Armour shares fall after dropping a deal with Stephen Curry. Katherine Sullivan hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. An artificial-intelligence tool assisted in the making of this episode by creating summaries that were based on Wall Street Journal reporting and reviewed and adapted by an editor.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bonus Episode for Nov. 4. The weight-loss-drug arms race is only heating up, as Novo Nordisk attempts to snatch drugmaker Metsera away from Pfizer. But can either company compete with Zepbound seller Eli Lilly? WSJ reporter Peter Loftus discusses what earnings from Big Pharma, including AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck, say about the future of the industry and how companies are responding to President Trump's drug-pricing plans, including TrumpRx. WSJ Heard on the Street columnist David Wainer hosts this special bonus episode of What's News in Earnings, where we dig into companies' earnings reports and analyst calls to find out what's going on under the hood of the American economy. Sign up for the WSJ's free Markets A.M. newsletter. Further Reading: Novo Nordisk Sweetens Offer for Metsera - WSJ Pfizer Sues Seeking to Block Novo Nordisk's Effort to Undo Weight-Loss Drug Deal Why Pfizer Can Still Prevail in the Obesity Fight With Novo Nordisk The Day Pharma's Weight-Loss Gold Rush Intensified Pfizer Profit Falls Amid Lower Covid-19 Drug Demand Novo Nordisk Seeks to Outmuscle Pfizer With $9 Billion Bid for Metsera Novo Nordisk to Shake Up Board After Obesity-Market Challenges Mounjaro Powers Eli Lilly to Bumper Quarter of Earnings AbbVie Lifts Profit Outlook as Sales Rise Bristol Myers Squibb Profit Soars, Raises Revenue Guidance Merck Profit Rises on Strong Keytruda Demand GSK Lifts Guidance After Specialty Medicines Boost Sales Novartis Expects to Ride Out Patent Losses With Sales, Profit Growth Ahead Biogen Cuts Full-Year Earnings Guidance, Despite Third-Quarter Profit Rise J&J Lifts Full-Year Sales Outlook, Fueled by Pharma, Med-Device Gains Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mark Murphy shares insights from his research on maximizing team effectiveness.— YOU'LL LEARN — 1) Why you don't want a team of all “team players”2) The simple trick for more decisive teams 3) How to get your team to generate 3X more valuable ideas Subscribe or visit AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep1105 for clickable versions of the links below. — ABOUT MARK — Mark Murphy is a New York Times bestselling author, Senior Contributor to Forbes, andFounder of Leadership IQ, a research and training firm. His latest book is TEAM PLAYERS: The Five Critical Roles You Need to Build A Winning Team. Mark's previous bestselling books include: Hiring for Attitude, Hundred Percenters, HARD Goals, Managing Narcissists, Blamers, Dramatics and more. Mark leads one of the world's largest databases of original leadership research, and his work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Fortune, Forbes, Bloomberg, BusinessWeek, Harvard Business Review, and U.S. News & World Report. He's been a featured guest on programs including CBS News Sunday Morning, ABC's 20/20, Fox Business News, CNN International and NPR.Some of his most well-known research studies include “Why New Hires Fail,” “Are SMART Goals Dumb?,” “Why CEO's Get Fired,” “High Performers Can Be Less Engaged,” and “Don't Expect Layoff Survivors to Be Grateful.” Mark has conducted training for The United Nations, Harvard Business School, Microsoft, IBM, MasterCard, Merck, and thousands more.• Book: Team Players: The Five Critical Roles You Need to Build a Winning Team• Quiz: “Team Player Quiz: What Type Of Team Player Are You?"• Website: LeadershipIQ.com— RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE SHOW — • Study: “Studies in the Principles of Judgments and Attitudes: II. Determination of Judgments by Group and by Ego Standards” by S.E. Asch• Book: Escape from Freedom by Erich Fromm• Past episode: 256: Science-based Solutions for Delivering Tough Truth at Work with Mark Murphy— THANK YOU SPONSORS! — • Strawberry.me. Claim your $50 credit and build momentum in your career with Strawberry.me/Awesome• Vanguard. Give your clients consistent results year in and year out with vanguard.com/AUDIO• Quince. Get free shipping and 365-day returns on your order with Quince.com/Awesome• Cashflow Podcasting. Explore launching (or outsourcing) your podcast with a free 10-minute call with Pete.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.